Dyslexic Learners

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made by the Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit in ensuring that the appropriate assessment processes and materials for dyslexic learners are being commissioned to allow access to the core curricula for literacy and numeracy, as stated in Skills for Life.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Skills for Life is the national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy. The Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit is responsible for delivering the strategy. Learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, including specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, are a priority group for the Skills for Life strategy. In order to improve the quality of teaching and learning for dyslexic adults, the unit has commissioned diagnostic assessment materials and learning materials guidance to improve access to the core curricula for literacy and numeracy skills.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Is she aware that I have had passed on to me by the British Dyslexia Association an example of one of the people who operate the helpline saying that the courses provided were not for dyslexics but for those who had missed schooling through ill health or for similar reasons? The effect of one such comment was compounded by an operator saying, "You do not need to worry about it anyway. My wife is dyslexic and runs her own business". Will the Minister assure me that that level of ignorance among the operators of the helpline will be dealt with forthwith? What process is in place to ensure that it does not happen in future?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very disappointed to hear that example. The British Dyslexia Association is part of the reference group that supports us in our work. As the noble Lord is aware, the purpose of the strategy is to ensure that we assess, diagnose and work alongside dyslexic people, enabling them to be supported as they develop their skills. I shall investigate the particular incident, if the noble Lord will pass on the details. I share his dismay.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that representation has been made to the department about the difficulty of taking up to five AS-levels on one day. The example discussed in this Chamber was 23rd May. Dyslexic pupils have particular difficulty in that they need assistance while sitting AS-levels. Taking five subjects in one day physically cannot be managed. It means that dyslexic pupils will be exempt from a normal part of the examination process.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is slightly different from the adult basic skills strategy. I heard about that case over lunchtime. I have asked for a written submission in order to ensure that we can deal with the query. In supporting dyslexic children, we ensure that they have additional time to take examinations. If, as the noble Baroness points out, what was proposed in the course of one day was impossible, it would need to be investigated.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with reference to the core curriculum, is there still a serious dearth of dyslexic teachers?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I gather that the noble Lord refers to teachers who can support those with dyslexia or dyscalculia. I did not mean to raise a laugh; I was trying to be clear. It is important that those who have dyslexia can become teachers.
	We are trying to ensure that in education broadly, and in the adult basic skills strategy in particular—the basis of the original Question—all teachers can diagnose and support dyslexic children. We endeavour to do that by working closely with the Dyslexia Institute and the British Dyslexia Association, in particular in the earlier part of education, to ensure that materials are available in schools, and that teachers' training enables them to support children.
	One of the most interesting pieces of research that I have seen recently in this area demonstrates the absolutely critical importance of parental involvement. Students who are supported by parents working with them progress more quickly.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the original Question asked whether processes and materials were available for dyslexic learners. Can the Minister tell us more about adults, particularly those involved in the Skills for Life exercise, who failed to learn basic reading and writing skills, often because they had dyslexia that was not recognised? Are materials available to them under the programme to enable them to pick up skills at a later stage?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is nice to return to the original Question. In May this year we will publish the diagnostic assessment materials. They are specifically designed to identify adults who may have dyslexia. There are many different reasons—a factor to which the noble Baroness alluded—which explain why adults do not have the literacy and numeracy skills we wish them to have. I understand that an estimated 7 million adults do not have the literacy skills of the average 11 year-old. Many different reasons can prevent their acquiring them, including other forms of learning difficulty or other specific disability. In addition, for various reasons, some adults simply have not received from the education system the skills they need. It is very clear that we want to ensure that those involved have the diagnostic skills.
	We are also producing guidance on how to ensure that the Skills for Life materials are more accessible to adult learners and how to recognise learners who have dyslexia or dyscalculia. Materials are available. I planned to send the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a set; I shall also send them to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, as president of the British Dyslexia Association, I am particularly anxious for the Minister to reassure the House that the materials will be available to prisoners, many of whom are diagnosed as dyslexic.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, we estimate that 80 per cent of prisoners have poor writing skills, 50 per cent have reading difficulty and 65 per cent have number difficulty. Indeed, the materials will be available. We are working very closely with the Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit. It is represented on the dyslexia reference group and we are represented equally on the Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit looking at special educational needs.
	All the courses are available to teachers in the full range of settings, including the Prison Service.

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they hope to achieve for their extractive industries transparency initiative at the G8 summit in Evian in June.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we hope that G8 will endorse action on reporting of revenues and payments in the extractive industries under a voluntary compact being promoted within the initiative as part of a wider agenda on transparency and corruption. G8 endorsement would strengthen the commitment of stakeholders to the principles underlying the initiative and encourage governments and companies to come on board.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive Answer and I congratulate her on her work on the initiative. Does she agree with me, I wonder, that, although this is a relatively narrow and focused initiative, it can have a most powerful impact on enabling political stability and attracting foreign direct investment to developing countries?
	But initiatives need exemplars to show the way. Can my noble friend say what progress is being made to identify pilot governments who will stick their heads above the parapet and take part; such as, perhaps, Botswana or Azerbaijan?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend for her comments about my own role. I entirely agree with my noble friend that, although this is a very focused initiative, it is one that could have considerable impact, not least because it would mean that the citizens in the countries that were making these payments transparent would then have an opportunity to hold their governments accountable.
	We are holding a seminar in June. There was one in February. A number of governments, companies and NGOs were involved in that seminar. A number of countries have expressed interest in being pilot countries. At this stage I am unable to tell my noble friend which those countries are; we are still at the discussion stage. But once we have agreement, which may be in June, I shall be happy to write in further detail to my noble friend.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please explain in plain English what the extractive industries transparency initative means?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness; it is rather a mouthful. The complementary initiative to this is called Publish What You Pay, which I think is much clearer. It is about ensuring that those companies in the oil, mining and gas areas which receive payments from governments—that those payments are published so that it is absolutely clear what payments those companies are making to those governments. At the moment those payments can go anywhere and may not actually be used for the good of the country.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, but at least there was some tentative suggestion that the oil companies might admit what they had been paying to the Angolan Government and that the Angolan Government might admit how much money they had received. Does this agreement or the discussions include, for example, diamonds? We know that for years the north of Angola has been raped by unscrupulous people mining diamonds and transferring them through Brussels or elsewhere as diamonds from somewhere else.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the compact and the current discussions cover the oil, gas and mining industries. In that sense, diamonds would be covered. With respect to the specific question asked by my noble friend about Angola, he will recall that BP tried to encourage greater transparency in its business with Angola some time ago. It was rapped over the knuckles by the Angolan Government for doing that because it was breaking a local contract.
	The situation in Angola has changed since then with the war having ended. Indeed, Angola attended our seminar in February. Therefore, I am hopeful that Angola will be one of the countries that wants to take part in this initiative in a fuller way.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we discussed this in the debate on Angola in December when the Minister told your Lordships that she had already raised the initiative with not only G8 but also with NePAD. Is it possible that at the summit in Evian there will be not only an endorsement from the G8 but that it will be presented with a draft statement on best practice for transparency and disclosure of payments, involving extractive companies, contractors and host governments? Will the noble Baroness consider extending her remit to cover the international financial institutions, because if they were to sign up to the initiative it would give it an enormous boost?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the international financial institutions are involved. It is a multi-stakeholder initiative and part of the criticism of the initiative from the NGOs is that we have gone for a voluntary rather than a mandatory compact. But the reason that we have gone for a voluntary compact at this stage is so that we can keep all those stakeholders on board. We have not ruled out the possibility of going down the mandatory route at a later stage.
	With respect to whether we can go further at the G8 meeting on endorsement, it is partly a matter of timing. It is important to get endorsement from the G8. The further meeting of the multi-stakeholder group will happen after the G8 meeting. It is at that point that we should like to see agreement to the principles, agreement to the action that would then follow and a number of countries coming forward to pilot the initiative.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, which of the developing countries and the industrialised nations is supporting this initiative?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have an extensive list of those countries which attended our workshop in February and I shall be happy to send it to the noble Baroness. I shall list a few examples: the governments of Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Botswana, France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, ourselves and Venezuela were represented, to name but a few. Companies represented included AngloAmerican, the BG Group, Chevron Texaco, Marathon Oil and Rio Tinto. A range of NGOs attended, as well as representatives from international financial institutions. NePAD and UN representatives also attended.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would it be fair to say that the buzzwords for the Evian summit are "mutual accountability" between north and south? Can it be presented that we have taken forward initiatives on accountability, as have African governments—for example, in the case of NePAD, which was just mentioned? Does it follow that this could form part of the menu for strengthening and deepening the NePAD concept between African countries?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the G8 Africa Action Plan will be one of the topics to be discussed at the G8 meeting, and the issue of mutual accountability is at the core of that. Considering the Evian summit overall, responsible economy rather mutual accountability will be the term that the French would prefer to use. However, as regards the Africa Action Plan and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, I agree entirely with my noble friend that those are good examples of us working together.

Public Transport: Fares

Lord Dixon-Smith: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is their policy that public transport fares by bus and train should rise faster than car running costs.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, improvements to transport depend on sustained investment year on year. That investment will come from both public funding and fares from passengers.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in spite of and, in part, as a result of these adverse price movements, it is a fact that the increase in use of public transport has had only a marginal impact on total transport demand as the economy continues to grow. The nation will therefore have to rely on and continue to expand road transport. What plans do the Government have further to expand and accelerate the use of alternative and less polluting fuels and technologies in order to reduce pollution?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, cares to look at the recent Budget, he will see that very substantial concessions have been made to less polluting fuels. Furthermore, a cut in the duty on bio-ethanol has just been announced. Additionally, changes have been made in regard to ultra-low sulphur fuels. The Chancellor recognises the value of low-polluting fuels and has acknowledged that in his Budget.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, it is an established fact that, as fares rise, one sees an almost linear fall in the use of public transport over the succeeding years. Technically, a fall in use of around 0.8 per cent is observed for each 1 per cent rise in fares. What specific plans have the Government made to ensure that fuel for bus operators is less expensive, and are they planning to do anything to help the industry to help itself, albeit that the investment comes from the private sector?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounds like a statistical fallacy to me. I do not deny the statistical relationship cited by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but the market and activity we are concerned with here is movement. Movement can be by private car or public transport or, indeed, by bicycle and walking. As the Question rightly implies, it is the balance between use of the private car and public transport which is determined by the costs of motoring and the costs of public transport. Therefore the relationship between fares and public transport use is merely a sub-set of that wider correlation.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is not one of the main problems encountered by public transport operators in attracting business the perceived level of their fares against the apparent cost of petrol to cover an individual journey? Is not one of the ways of redressing that balance of perception, therefore, to encourage the expansion of congestion charging and motorway tolling?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure about perceived costs. While it is certainly true that public transport fares, in particular bus fares, have increased in real terms over recent years, that has taken place because we are committed to very heavy increases in transport expenditure as a whole. The 10-year plan discusses expenditure of £180 billion, of which public transport is to take up £120 billion. Thus, as I implied in my first Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, passengers have to play some part in that. However, of course there are exaggerations in the public mind about the extent of fare increases. That is particularly the case in regard to the January increases. The newspapers always choose the particular routes and journeys on which the fare increases in percentage terms are largest.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, is it true or false that the United Kingdom has the highest costs of transport for the individual by bus, by rail and by car per mile and per minute of both the European Union and the United States?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think there could be some dispute over what is meant by "costs". The costs cover both fares and the cost to the taxpayer. I would be very surprised if we bear the largest cost, but it is true that we do have higher fares than is the case in many European countries.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of recent reports stating that the Strategic Rail Authority is considering raising commuter passenger fares by 20 per cent? If so, will that encourage people to use the railways?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not comment on speculation of that kind. The fact is that public intervention in fares consists of regulated fares. Around 44 per cent of all fares are regulated, and by law regulated fares are available on all routes. Such fares are extremely helpful where there is captive demand, such as for commuter journeys. Regulated fares apply in particular to weekly season tickets. So we do take action on the issue referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.

Government Information and Communication Service

Lord McNally: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What changes will be introduced in the management of the Government Information and Communication Service following the recommendations made in the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 5775).

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government will give careful consideration to the report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life entitled Defining the Boundaries within the Executive, including the recommendations in respect of the Government Information and Communication Service, and will respond in due course.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that sounds very much like kicking the report into the long grass, as was the case with the preparations of the former Cabinet Secretary for a Civil Service Act? What has got into this Government when they receive a sober and constructive report from a well-respected public servant like Sir Nigel Wicks, yet they continue to prevaricate and stall on something which is blindingly obvious; that is, our public service needs to be underpinned by a Civil Service Act? As Sir Nigel Wicks warned so profoundly, the Government will either go to this by way of legislation or they will be dragged to it by scandal.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the report from Sir Nigel Wicks was delivered to the Government only three weeks ago. It was one and a half years in the making. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be aware that when a Select Committee report is produced, a government reply would be expected within a couple of months. So far we have had three weeks. We shall give the report due consideration.
	As regards the noble Lord's concern for the Government Information and Communication Service, he should be aware that, in response to the Select Committee on Public Administration, we have set up a review of government communications to be chaired by Bob Phillis. That review group is inviting evidence. If the noble Lord wishes to submit written evidence, I am sure that it will be happily received.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, my noble friend said that we may be getting a Civil Service Act, but the ninth report of the Wicks committee pointed out quite clearly that we should not undermine the impartiality of the Civil Service. This echoes the views of the Fulton committee, on which I was privileged to serve some 35 years ago, that there was this kind of danger and that it needed to be taken into account. The blurring of the line between the Civil Service and the Government is a matter of enormous concern. Thanks to Northcote-Trevelyan we have in the Civil Service an institution of outstanding value. Will my noble friend ensure that a Civil Service Act is introduced to deal with this immediate and pressing problem?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. The Government have made clear that they welcome the contribution made by the Wicks committee. Indeed, it is extremely important to us that we uphold the values of the Civil Service, particularly its impartiality. As to the concern for the Government Information and Communication Service expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I stress that all recruitment to GICS is carried out on the basis of open competition. Appointments are made on merit and on the ability of the civil servants involved to serve any government impartially.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I strongly support what has been said to the Minister. He speaks as if these issues came to the Government's attention like a thunderbolt out of the blue three weeks ago. They have, of course, been tossed around for ever and Ministers must have known what was happening. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I belong to a time when there were a good deal fewer and humbler special advisers than there are today. Does the Minister agree that it is one thing for Ministers to have help from special advisers on the political side of their work and quite another to blur the distinction and to put special advisers in charge of civil servants—thus, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, clouding the line of the direct responsibility of civil servants to Ministers and Parliament?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the House may recall the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on this issue when he explained that his interpretation of the decisions of 1997 to give executive authority to three special advisers under a Civil Service order was a welcome clarification of the pragmatic system that had existed under previous governments. We have been quite open in our dealings on such issues. We have opened up, in a way that was not done before, the appointments system for special advisers. People now know how many there are and how much they cost. We have also opened up the lobby system so that if the Prime Minister's special advisers are involved with civil servants that fact is on the record wherever possible. Through the efforts we have made the Government have gone a long way towards ensuring that transparency becomes the ally of good government and offers continued protection for the Civil Service.

Lord McNally: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, as Cabinet Secretary, was working on a Civil Service Act, the Minister came to the Dispatch Box and gave the same kind of dead-bat replies that the Government were considering and looking at the matter. What have they now done? They have appointed another committee to look at it. And yet, on the day that the Wicks committee reported, Downing Street immediately hit back by suggesting that it would be unrealistic for Mr Campbell to stop directing different parts of the government machine. That is exactly what the Wicks committee recommended he should stop doing, and the Government took minutes to reject it.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not recognise that interpretation of the Wicks committee report. I stress again that we received the report exactly three weeks ago after it was one and a half years in the making. The noble Lord will be aware that the Public Administration Select Committee has promised that it would evolve a basis for a way forward in legislation, which we have said we would welcome and consider. We await its report in the weeks and months ahead.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government may have received the report only three weeks ago but the section on the Government Information and Communication Service is only five and half pages long, in my copy anyway. The Minister made much of the fact that all was well with recruitment into the Government Information and Communication Service. Why then does he consider the committee felt it necessary to specify in recommendation 26 that,
	"An individual should only be recruited to a senior post in the GICS where the selection panel has a high degree of confidence that he or she will be a leader in upholding the impartiality of the GICS"?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we believe that that situation exists at the moment and we will continue to support it. I made clear in my Answer that we will give due consideration to the recommendations—34 in total—of the Wicks committee. On other issues we await the report of a Select Committee which has promised to delve in even greater detail into the issues raised in May last year in the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I was a member of the Wicks committee and we received a great deal of evidence which showed much greater disquiet about special advisers, the GICS and many other aspects of government than the Minister seems to suggest today. Will he keep an open mind when looking at the recommendations, which I believe offer great protection for government?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I hope that there has been no misinterpretation of my views on this issue in the answers that I have given. We sincerely welcome the contribution made by the Wicks committee. My fellow Ministers and I appeared before it. In the weeks that we have available to us we shall give the report the due consideration I have promised. As I said, we will take it into account, along with the other ongoing studies and considerations, when trying to answer the other questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

Schools Funding

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why so many schools find it impossible to fund current staffing levels next year in spite of promised increases in government funding.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government have increased funding for schools this year by £2.6 billion—£250 million greater than cost pressures. The Government have cushioned the introduction of new funding arrangements by ensuring that every authority receives a minimum increase of 2.3 per cent per pupil in addition to provision for increased pension contributions and grant changes. However, while central government provides most of the funding, it is for local education authorities to decide education budgets and to allocate funding for schools.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She is inclined, as is the Secretary of State, to blame local authorities for the failure of the money to reach the schools. Is that fair? Did we not pass an Act last year which passported the money directly through to the schools and gave local authorities very little discretion? Can the Minister really assure the House that, in doing its sums, the DfES made proper calculation for the increase in national insurance contributions, for the increase in pension contributions, for the transfer of pension contributions and for the increase in costs as a result of performance-related pay? Is she sure that this is not another example of a mess of the Government's own making, where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing as a result of the redistribution exercise pursued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? As I said, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and this is a mess of the Government's own making.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this is not about the Government blaming local authorities but about a shared responsibility. We provide most of the funding for education but it is for the local authorities to decide the budgets that go to the schools. They decide by how much to increase council tax, if they feel that that is appropriate, how much to spend on central education services and how much money to allocate to individual schools. The point made by my right honourable friend was about shared responsibility. While we have made clear that we have put within the system the appropriate amount of money—including an increase above cost pressures—we recognise that we have to work closely with local education authorities to ensure that the money reaches the schools. On Friday, my right honourable friend will be publishing information to help to inform the debate more appropriately.
	Perhaps I may comment on a couple of the points that the noble Baroness made in what was a very long and wide-ranging question. There have been many changes within the system; we believe that we have a fairer funding system. In making calculations, the department looked at all the pressures we knew were under way this year—I have mentioned pensions—national insurance contributions, the shortening of the pay scales, non-teacher pay and so on. Having calculated those pressures, which we reckoned were about a 10.5 per cent increase, we then put in 11.6 per cent over and above the pressures that we had calculated. We are confident that those figures are correct.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has defended the Government very well on that point. However the truth is that Mr Miliband and Mr Charles Clarke have quite overtly blamed local government. Regarding the pressures that the noble Baroness has referred to, does she agree that national insurance, pensions, threshold and incremental increases for teachers and classroom assistants, the effect of the recent special educational needs provisions, in addition to the Government urging local authorities to spend more on social services and more policemen on the beat, have made the pressures on local government impossible? The local government award to local authorities has not kept pace. Does the Minister also accept that local authorities are in fact passporting £100 million more than the Government say they should in terms of schools funding?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not accept the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the way that we are treating local authorities. We are clear that this is understood to be a joint responsibility. What we are aware of, and noble Lords will see for themselves on Friday, is a huge variation, not only in the way that local education authorities work out the formula for themselves, but also variation between individual schools within local education authorities. There may be perfectly valid reasons for that, but I think that is right and proper, with the comments and questions that are coming forward about funding, that we ask those questions. That is very important, when one sees the breadth of the variation. I have the figures from this morning, and I say to the noble Baroness that the number of children with a statement of special educational needs remains constant from last year. The number of children with special educational needs without a statement has actually fallen from 16.8 per cent to 14 per cent.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said in her first Answer that the majority of the money comes from central government. Has she just heard it illustrated that in letting that come about the Government have pickled not merely a rod but a cat-o'-nine-tails for their own backs? Would it not be better to go back to local government? After all, were we not once rather good at it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that most noble Lords would accept that it is the job of central government to ensure that we fund education appropriately. I think that that is the right way to proceed. What we do, of course, is to allow local education authorities to determine the way in which they pass money down. Certainly, in my discussions with schools in different parts of the country it is clear that there are different ways of approaching it. They are not good or bad, they are simply different. The impact and effect on schools, when one has the kind of changes seen with the new funding formula, have therefore been different in different parts of the country. That is what local government is entitled to do and there to do.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of the money that goes for education to local authorities actually finds its way into the schools?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, again the information will be available on Friday. Certainly my right honourable friend tells me that more authorities than expected appear not to have passported the 100 per cent through to education, even though in February we were hearing that the vast majority would. Obviously we will have to explore with them why that has happened because I appreciate that there are pressures on local government. They are trying to do the best within their budgets. This is not about saying that they are wrong to do it. None the less, we are clear that the money is for education and needs to reach the schools. That is what we will endeavour to do.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, over the whole piece, can the Minister tell the House, so that we can be clear about this issue, what proportion of the school budgets has to cover salaries, national insurance and pensions? Those are figures which are determined by the Government centrally. Can she tell us what the proportion is, because that would give us some idea of the discretion that local authorities have?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is very difficult to give the noble Baroness those details, because this is about individual schools. They employ different numbers of teachers; they have different cost pressures as a consequence; they have different numbers of classroom assistants. We do not collect the kind of detail that would give me the snapshot that the noble Baroness would like. If I have more information I will write to her and place a copy in the Library.
	The critical factor is to make sure that within the education budget the money reaches schools. We know that, on the current information on the local authorities available, £339 million has yet to reach schools. My right honourable friend has been using a figure of £500 million across all education authorities, which is about right. Maybe that is yet to get through to schools. We are keeping a careful watch to ensure that money is reaching schools.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister said that they do not collect the statistics. Every single year at about this time of year there is something—I think it is the Form 7—which gives exactly and precisely the information to which my noble friend referred. The department has that information in great detail for every local education authority in the country.
	Regarding something else the Minister said earlier—the Secretary of State said on 13th February in a DfES press release:
	"The great majority of LEAs have passed on the increase in schools funding, and we welcome that."
	That does not fit with what the Minister has just told us.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is exactly what I have just been telling noble Lords. I said that as late as February my right honourable friend had understood that that was the situation. However, the information that is currently coming through seems to suggest that it is not. When noble Lords have the opportunity after Friday, after the local elections, which is the appropriate time, to look at the figures, they will be able to judge for themselves and come back to your Lordships' House and decide. We have to publish after the local elections, because that is the appropriate way to behave as the Government. It would be completely inappropriate to publish before then, and I am astonished that noble Lords opposite should think otherwise.
	If the noble Baroness is correct about the figures I apologise unreservedly. The information I thought that she wanted now was the full funding formula that we have just put into the system and whether I have an absolute analysis of the percentage that goes on wages and national insurance. The answer to that is no. If I have that available shortly, I will of course produce it for the House.

Harbours Bill [HL]

Report received.

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 29 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

15 After Clause 21, insert the following new clause— "Jurisdiction of courts
	(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the power under which it is made, subordinate legislation to which this section applies— "(a) may take provision for a judge of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to be appointed as an additional judge (with the two judges acting under section 123 of the Representation of the people Act 1983 (c. 2) as applied for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections) for the trial of an election petition relating to the election of MEPs in the combined region; and
	(b) may, for the purposes of such an election petition—
	(i) confer the powers, jurisdiction and authority of a judge of the High Court on any Gibraltar judge who is so appointed; and
	(ii) make any other provision necessary to secure that a Gibraltar judge so appointed is treated as if he were a judge of the High Court.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power under which it is made, subordinate legislation to which this section applies may—
	(a) confer jurisdiction over any matter connected with the election of MEPs in the combined region on an election court constituted under section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (as applied for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections);
	(b) confer jurisdiction over any such matter(not being a matter within the jurisdiction of the election court) on—
	(i) one or more courts in the United Kingdom;
	(ii) one or more courts in Gibraltar (whether specified in the regulations of left to be determined by or under the law of Gibraltar); or
	(iii) one or more courts in the United Kingdom and one or more courts in Gibraltar.
	(3) This section applies to—
	(a) an order under section 11;
	(b) regulations under section 16; and
	(c) regulations under section 7 of the 2002 Act."
	The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
	15A Line 28, leave out "regulations" and insert "subordinate legislation"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A to Lords Amendment No. 15. I would ask the House to return its attention to this Bill only briefly. As noble Lords may remember, we made a moderate number of amendments to the Bill as it passed through its stages in your Lordships' House. The other place yesterday agreed to our amendments and we can feel confident that our scrutiny has left the Bill a better piece of legislation.
	It has emerged, however, that there was a minor technical error in the drafting of the new specific clause on jurisdiction that we inserted into the Bill by our Amendment No. 13 in Grand Committee. As your Lordships may remember, the new clause is intended to enable the conferring of jurisdiction on the courts to be made either under regulations or an order. At present one of the references in the enabling power is erroneously restricted to "regulations". An amendment to the original amendment agreed yesterday in another place corrects that error, and ensures that the clause can work as intended. I commend the amendment to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A to Lords Amendment No. 15.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the acceptance of the amendment and take the opportunity to say how much we welcome, too, the aims of this legislation, especially as we have campaigned for a long time for a better deal for the people of Gibraltar.

Lord Roper: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Commons' agreement to the amendment which we made to the legislation and accept the technical amendment that they have made to it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Communications Bill

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Functions and general powers of OFCOM]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the clause passes, perhaps I may ask what I hope is a simple question and gain a simple answer. Subsection (5)(c) refers to what Ofcom will do in the matter of instituting criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but there is no mention of what will happen if proceedings have to be taken in Scotland.

Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, did not give me notice that he wanted to ask such a precise, technical question. I regret to say that I will have to write to him in order to give him the answer.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I welcome the pre-legislative scrutiny that has occurred in relation to the Bill. Clause 1(6) is a clear commitment that Ofcom should maintain offices in Wales. We regard it as a step, but not the whole journey.
	The draft of the Bill was sent to the National Assembly for Wales, which consulted widely throughout Wales and considered representations by members of the public, consumer and professional groups, broadcasters and regulatory broadcasting and communications bodies. Wales' specific concerns are the language, culture and technical problems which hinder the viewing and broadcasting of Welsh programmes, particularly in the marches of Wales.
	We are therefore grateful that the Bill provides that there should be offices in Wales for Ofcom, but a number of National Assembly recommendations do not appear in the Bill before us. We will come to those issues in due course, as amendments are debated, in particular the establishment of the Ofcom Wales communication council to advise on content and consumer and technical issues to replace the existing consultative bodies; power for the National Assembly to appoint the Welsh representatives on the content and consumer panels; a general duty on Ofcom to consult with and give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly; and an obligation that Ofcom will ensure that audience research is carried out on a Wales basis and that it will publish an annual report on its activities in Wales. We shall debate those recommendations, but unlike that in Clause 1(6) they do not appear on the face of the Bill.
	It is essential that the principles of the Bill and its provisions reflect the spirit of devolution. Calls from the Welsh Assembly government for a strong voice for Wales throughout the regulatory structure should be explicitly provided within the Bill but have so far been ignored. I take this opportunity to flag up the various issues which we shall come to in due course.

Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for flagging up those points. We will have ample opportunity to debate those aspects of the Bill that are concerned with devolution and the particular issues in relation to Ofcom and its operations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [General duties of OFCOM]:

Lord Puttnam: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 3, line 3, after "the" insert "principal"

Lord Puttnam: The purpose of this first group of amendments tabled by myself and other noble Lords, including members of the joint scrutiny committee, is to establish which moral universe this Bill is intended to inhabit. It is hoped that the first amendment will provide an unambiguous basis on which Ofcom can address even the most complicated issues falling within its remit, most particularly those which touch on the public interest.
	The Government have gone a long way in meeting many of the suggestions for improvement set out in our report and I am sure that the Committee will join me in recognising that. But at the same time they have tied themselves up in knots in persisting with a number of unfortunate notions, among them being a belief that one can legislate for, at all times, giving equal weight to the imperatives of the citizen and the market. It is precisely this issue—the competing claims of the citizen and the market—that lies at the heart of these and many other amendments the Committee will be considering in the coming weeks and months.
	This notion of the Government tied up in knots will attract differing levels of sympathy within the Committee, but the job of this group of amendments and others that follow is to ensure that Ofcom is itself saved from being bound up in similar knots.
	Governments come and go, but in the coming weeks, if we in this House do our job well, Ofcom can look forward to a secure and productive future. That is why it is so important that we prise the Government—and from time to time the Opposition Front Bench—away from some of the more unnecessarily destructive positions that they appear to have adopted.
	Let us start with the concept of co-equality. When looked at objectively it is honestly little more than a seductive chimera. It even has the potential to be positively dangerous. It would, over time, be surprising if many, if not most, of the challenges facing Ofcom do not present themselves as being capable of commercial or market-driven solutions. In fact, the entire Bill is predicated on that assumption.
	But not all of Ofcom's decisions can or should be dealt with in that way. This first amendment is intended to give the clearest possible signal to Ofcom that when the public interest finds itself even marginally at variance or in conflict with the workings of the marketplace, it is the public interest test that must be judged not as co-equal but as being of paramount importance.
	In a well-run world, it might be unnecessary to insist on any such clear distinction. But such are the powers of persuasion available to the marketplace, and so fragmented and under-resourced are the public interest voices raised in its defence, that it is vital that any unnecessary ambiguity becomes impossible and that a clear distinction finds its way on to the face of the Bill.
	These arguments were fairly well rehearsed on pages 11 and 12 of the report of the joint scrutiny committee. We pointed out that the self-same Minister who guided the Utilities Act through another place bore the burden of this present Bill, and that in referring to Section 9 of the Utilities Act, which sets out the principal objective of gas regulation, he made it clear that this principal objective was:
	"to further the interests of the persons who are customers . . . wherever appropriate, by promoting effective competition".
	Members of the Committee will note the use of "wherever appropriate"; none of this "co-equal" stuff found its way into the utilities legislation.
	Dr Howells made it crystal clear—and quite rightly—that it is the customer—or in this case the citizen—who counts. In fact, the Minister went even further at the time of the passage of the Act, saying that:
	"the duties form a hierarchy which is designed to assist regulators in resolving potentially conflicting regulatory objectives".
	I am forced to ask the Minister the same question as was asked by the joint scrutiny committee. Can she explain why the common-sense approach that the Government brought to bear in achieving the passage of their utilities legislation has been abandoned, when surely it must have been apparent to Ministers and their officials that Ofcom was likely to be confronted with similar, and I would suggest even far greater, conflicting regulatory objectives?
	It is all too reminiscent of that short-lived concept of "light touch". It might have served its purpose as a headline grabber, but when things got serious the Government got real and sensibly decided in favour of seeking legislation that was appropriate and proportionate. That was probably what they meant all along, but I guess they just needed to hear the argument.
	So it is, or ought to be, with "co-equal". It should go the way of "light touch". Bin them both, I say, because both are confusing, both invite dispute and both, as I have suggested, have the potential to be dangerously misunderstood, even so far as leading to the possibility of judicial review.
	The Government in their communications Green Paper of July 1998 stated, without caveat, that:
	"The regulatory process starts with government. Regulators must have a clear legislative framework within which to operate".
	Surely, all the more reason to listen, as did the joint scrutiny committee, to the advice of the regulators themselves. We were extremely fortunate to have that doyen among regulators, Sir Bryan Carlsberg, advising us throughout the whole of our deliberations. We found ourselves in unanimous cross-party agreement with Patricia Hodgson, the chief executive of the ITC when in evidence she advised that failing to achieve such a hierarchy—the same one which was recommended by Dr Howells—may,
	"have a danger of paralysing decision-making".
	This is an area in which speed of intervention is important. A constant theme of the evidence presented to the joint scrutiny committee was that,
	"slow regulation is ineffective regulation".
	I beg Members of the Committee to listen, as we did, to Mr Nick Lovegrove, head of McKinsey's telecoms, media and technology practice, who, writing in the Financial Times of 26th November, said,
	"All of us care as consumers and citizens what happens in these sectors . . . These sectors really matter to our everyday lives, and OFCOM will need to connect with citizens and consumers across the range of issues".
	He added,
	"OFCOM will need to remind itself of its primary objective, to protect the interests of citizens and customers. That will require constant vigilance over market structure and conduct since consumers are always the [first] and most direct victims of monopoly abuse or dysfunctional competition".
	That is not the plaintive voice of the consumer lobby, but hard-edged, practical advice from someone who spent every day of his working life immersed in these complexities and on behalf, primarily, of commercial interests. Indeed, the Secretary of State herself, in a briefing before the House of Commons Second Reading, made it clear in her own words that,
	"Consumer interests remain at the heart of OFCOM's focus".
	So why this lingering and unnecessary ambiguity when it is clearly not intended to be such? It is possible that the Minister and the noble Baronesses on the Opposition Front Bench will find entirely persuasive these and other arguments advanced in favour of these relatively simple but important amendments. I sincerely hope so. Should the Government decide otherwise I am sure that the Committee would be grateful if the Minister were to spell out in some detail the way in which the Government imagine that their doctrine of co-equality might work in practice. One or two hypothetical cases with clear, unambiguous resolutions may well go some way towards reassuring the Committee that the day-to-day, week-to-week functioning of co-equality is in fact possible. What is certain is that she is likely to be offered any number of, I hope, useful hypothetical cases from all parts of the House, which I anticipate will establish that the Government will be doing few favours to themselves and even fewer to Ofcom if they press ahead with this clause unamended. I beg to move.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I begin with an apology to the Committee that I rise to speak in connection with the very first group of amendments when I did not do so at Second Reading. I was prevented from doing so by a family funeral. I have another declaration of interest to make. I have a daughter who is a member of the management of the BBC as well as myself being president of IBA and ITC Pensioners Association. I hope that due impartiality between the two main broadcasting organisations may be some evidence of that on my part.
	I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in what he has said. It is particularly appropriate that this very important Committee stage of a major Bill should begin with a group of amendments that go to the heart of the challenge in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke about making effective arrangements for co-equality. I use a gentler metaphor and say "to contract a happy marriage" between the interest of Britain's global telecommunications industry on the one hand and its essentially domestic broadcasting services with the major core of public sector broadcasting on the other, which, I believe it is fair to say, is the envy of the rest of the world.
	As recently as the 1980s, when I was chairman of the IBA, telecommunications and broadcasting lived reasonably happily and largely in separate houses with neighbourly but distant relationships. Now the walls are totally down. Under the Bill, the board of Ofcom will be simultaneously responsible to two Secretaries of State for major departments with important, different and sometimes conflicting interests. Indeed, that is reflected in the rather unusual wording of the clause, in my experience of legislation.
	It is a case of two cooks in the same kitchen. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues will have their work cut out. It is for that reason that I believe there is immense force in the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for very serious reconsideration by the Government of their attitude to this matter.
	There is now a global market place in telecommunications and some stunning communications technology is competing there. As I know very well from my own experience, that offers very seductive temptations to government. I was a member of a government which trusted too much in what was called, in a famous phrase, "the white heat of the scientific revolution". A lot of good it did for us in the end. I believe that a greater and, I hope, more enduring British achievement lies in our public broadcasting system, from its birth in the BBC, with the creation of a publicly-funded organisation, to an advertising-funded ITV and on to a fourth channel. They are all creations to the credit of the Opposition Front Bench and Conservative governments.
	From these Benches we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. In a media-dominated age the quality of our lives in the 21st century will be greatly affected by the quality of our media and the degree to which we can, in the words of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury,
	"uphold the principles of public service broadcasting".
	I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. It would also be helpful if they were to accept the modest amendment of my noble friend Lord Phillips and to put the words I have just quoted on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made me think wryly to myself that it would have been better if there had been two commissions, one dealing with the market place which he so ably described, and the other with the contents side. But we have moved on from that point.
	My noble friend Lady O'Neill had hoped to be here to join in this part of the Committee stage, but she cannot be present for the summing up and therefore decided that she could not speak today. I hope that she will have an opportunity later.
	Considerable concern has been expressed in the other place about the wider needs in the interests of the citizen. We have all used that word to great effect to differentiate it from the word "consumer", but for legal reasons it could not appear in the Bill. But there was wider concern that insufficient attention was paid to the needs and the interests of the citizen. These two amendments give the Minister the opportunity to expand on how the Government expect Ofcom to interpret these vitally important general duty clauses as currently drafted. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry herself said at the Bill's Third Reading in another place,
	"Ofcom's general duties are crucial in determining how it will operate".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/03; col. 777.]
	So where better to spell those out—if I may disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—than right at the top of this all-important Clause 3?
	Perhaps the Minister will also explain why the Government felt it necessary to table the amendment which now forms Clause 3(1)(b) when their original view was that the Bill as first drafted was satisfactorily even-handed as between the consumer and the citizen. The government amendment is certainly in my view a step in the right direction but it is still not thought by all to be explicit enough to meet the concerns expressed.
	The amendments that I propose spell out in much more detail than the Government's current wording relating to furthering the interests of the wider community that one of the Bill's specific duties will be to promote the communications industry's ability
	"to contribute to public, civil and cultural life"
	as well as
	"to uphold the principles of public service broadcasting".
	In this rapidly changing world—above all, it is rapidly changing in communications—it is surely important to remember, and help to retain, the reason why British broadcasting has such a high reputation both nationally and internationally. To inform, educate and entertain is second nature to most UK terrestrial channels even if the highest quality is not always achieved in every programme. But we owe that whole approach to our broadcasting history and to the standards then set. As has just been said, from the early days of the BBC through to the introduction of commercial channels right up to today's interactive, electronic means of communication, as we must now call them, there has been the general expectation from UK citizens that public service broadcasting would form the backbone of what we see on our various interactive screens. That quality of this kind has survived owes a considerable debt, I would argue, to the regulatory framework within which British broadcasting has operated ever since. That expectation is with us still. Indeed, it is here in this very Bill where the proposed regulation for quality as well as the quantity of what is expected from our broadcasting channels is set out. Contrast that with the United States. There, regulation of broadcast content is minimal. If the Government succeed in their policy to open ownership of certain UK broadcasting channels to foreign owners, it will be even more important to have this requirement, this additional safeguard, right up there specifically spelt out as a paramount duty of Ofcom. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively to these amendments.

Lord Alli: The notion of co-equality as between the consumer and the market is one that we have never really carried through in practice in this country. In fact, we have so distorted the market towards the consumer by the very existence of the BBC that it is a nonsense in terms of concept. My only contribution to the amendment we are discussing is to talk about the practicalities of it.
	For some time I have worked as a senior executive of one of the major broadcasters. The effect of the measure we are discussing will be to allow me as a senior executive of a broadcasting company to look for a chink in the Ofcom armour and say, "You have to treat my commercial concerns in the same way as you do the consumer. As an executive in a broadcasting company I would not be afraid to take the Government to judicial review". In fact, Ofcom is more likely to be frightened of judicial review than I am as a commercial entity.
	It seems to me that the amendments we are discussing would take away the risk of judicial review when the consumer and the market are in conflict. For that reason I believe that the Government should think very carefully about this set of amendments to save Ofcom being tested time and time again by clever executives such as myself.

Lord Crickhowell: I intervene at this point having listened to the two speeches that have just been made. I particularly take the point about judicial review and the point made by the noble Baroness about what has happened in the United States. I shall speak to later amendments on the subject of ownership and other matters in relation to the American experience and shall produce some striking evidence of what has happened there as the monopolies have taken over—those vast companies with their commercial priorities and their ability to dictate events—as regulation has been relaxed in the United States. Therefore, it is important that we give the regulator very effective tools to tackle these extraordinarily powerful international organisations who perfectly reasonably have one overriding objective; that is, the commercial success of their companies. Often they originate in parts of the world where the public service principle has been less well developed than it has in this country.
	I believe that the Government have made great progress in accepting many of the suggestions of the Joint Committee on that point. We now have spelled out the importance of,
	"the interests of the community as a whole"
	which I believe is intended to absorb the citizen and makes clear that that is the paramount objective. But we need to give the regulator the tools to do the job effectively. Although the statement about the function,
	"to further the interests of consumers . . . and . . . of the community"
	appears right at the top of Clause 3, the fact is that the clause covers two whole pages of the Bill and contains many qualifications, sub-qualifications and interpretations that will have to be addressed by the regulator. As subsection (6) of Clause 3 spells out, where it appears that any of Ofcom's general duties conflict with each other in a particular case,
	"they must secure that the conflict is resolved in the manner they think best in the circumstances".
	That indicates the kind of difficulty the regulator will be in in such cases. It will be a fiendishly difficult task. I have been a regulator in a slightly easier field than I think Ofcom will operate in. I certainly would have liked to have spelt out by government and in legislation what the primary responsibilities were. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the arguments because I do not think that they are quarrelling with the principle that the consumer and the community interest is paramount. It is only a question of how we best achieve that. The Government would do well to take the advice that has just been given by a practitioner in this field of huge experience and consider particularly the experience of the United States and what has happened there, about which we shall hear a good deal more in this debate. I hope that they will take account of that and move appropriate amendments in due course.

Lord Bragg: I, too, wish to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and by other Members of the Committee, some of whom were members of the much admired scrutiny committee. My noble friend Lord Puttnam is absolutely right on two vital counts. Our task must be to make sure that Ofcom is founded on an unambiguous basis. For want of a nail finally the kingdom was lost.
	As for the phrase "co-equality", it must be put aside—as my noble friend suggested—for wording that, in any essential conflict, loads the argument on the side of the public interest. We will hear the words "public interest" many thousands of times in these discussions—and so we should. We must never lose sight of the fact that the massive majority of people in this country get their news, entertainment and education from television and radio. As my noble friend Lord Thomson pointed out, public interest broadcasting in the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 has been at the heart of our system. It is the way we do it. No fashionable financial flurries, jezabel trends or talk of greener grass elsewhere should shift us from that ground. For most of the British public, for most of the time, for almost 70 years, public service as the character of the British system has delivered.
	The sudden arrival of multi channels and the clatter of mega corporations should not break our lines. Just because something is there does not mean that it is good or helpful. Volcanoes and earthquakes come to mind. Both are good metaphors for what has happened in television over the past 15, 10 and especially five years, from four to about 500 different channels—new money, new technology, new impatience, new lamps for old.
	The landscape may have changed but the people have not changed much. Not in terms of public interest—which, if anything, is even more precious than before. That is why I so emphatically support the amendment.
	I wish to bring forward a rather unexpected witness. Mr. Barry Diller may be said to have started Paramount Studios in the USA when he produced "Saturday Night Fever"—which broke all box office records at the time. He went on to become—according to my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who knows about these things—the single most successful American media executive and entrepreneur in history. He seems to be the embodiment of market man and the new—the old Adam Smith unleashed. His stake in one of his companies stands at 3 billion dollars and he is the thirtieth richest man in America.
	Where does this supreme American entrepreneur feature in debates about British broadcasting in your Lordships' House? He brings a warning. He is the Cassandra that some of us need to jolt us. In a speech to the American National Association of Broadcasters in Las Vegas on 17th April, Mr. Diller made several observations about what has happened to American broadcasting since it slipped the harness of regulation and went whole hog for the market. I am fully aware that Mr. Diller speaks out of our context and circumstances. Like all warnings, this one may seem overdramatic, but I believe that the Bill might fall into the trap of the unintended consequences that lurk in wait if we do not get the legislation right.
	I hope that I shall not tax your Lordships but I would like to quote rather amply from Mr. Diller's speech. First, he referred to America's regulated face until quite recently. It sounds like Eden. He commented that broadcasters were unique because their influence on society probably had no equal:
	"The houses of broadcasting had to be made of glass because broadcasters were given a free licence to operate, 'in the public interest, convenience and necessity'. That was a source of pride. It was also a source of fear because somebody could come in and take away those licences away. Everyone took those obligations pretty seriously and out of it came a truly remarkable balance between a great business model and servicing the public trust . . . But in an age when the free market has been the prevailing model this, like every other industry, wanted as much relaxation of the rules as possible so as to free the 'invisible hand' that Adam Smith envisioned, bringing us the wondrous benefits of unfettered capitalism. 'Laissez nous faire'. Get off our backs . . . We got the Communications Act of 1996. When it was passed, FCC Chairman Hundt said, 'The new law is intended to end the era of big government in communications and begin the era of genuine competition'. And it was embraced with enthusiasm and hope for real competition. What actually happened?"
	Mr. Diller goes into detail but I will pick up on only one or two points:
	"Today . . . the great big beautiful tomorrow has dawned. The 500 plus channels that were going to turn the old, heavily regulated world upside down is a full-blown reality . . . The unintended consequence of deregulation is that the government has inadvertently allowed to happen the exact opposite of what it intended to do . . . Are we going to get real diversity? The programme departments of these businesses are now so far down the chain of life in these giant enterprises that it is a miracle that all shows on the air aren't about rejection. Conglomerates buy eyeballs. That's it. And they leverage. Oh do they leverage. They leverage their producing power to drive content, their distribution power—such as retransmission consent—to drive new services, and their promotional power to literally obliterate competitors".
	He spoke about local broadcasting, which will strike a chord with many of your Lordships:
	"Local broadcasters should not be simply the distribution arms of monolithic enterprises. [They] have too much importance in [their] communities. [They] are the foundation of the whole edifice that is television".
	Finally he commented:
	"The public interest is about promoting diversity, localism and competition. The old paradigm is gone. Now we are in a new universe and the question—is what to do? There are real dangers in complete concentration. The conventional wisdom is wrong. We need more regulation, not less".
	Perhaps that seems too heavy a warning. I do not think that it really is. The plotline of those remarks is already recognisable over here.
	I quoted Mr. Diller at length partly to emphasise that we are playing for very high stakes. In our country and culture, I trust that when there is a head-on crisis your Lordships will make it clear that the public interest must always carry greater weight. There is no co-equality. To this and many other amendments, I lend my complete support and I hope that those points will be taken into consideration by the Government.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As my name appears against Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, I rise briefly to support all that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and other speakers. I congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his opening remarks. He struck at the heart of the inadequacy of a Bill that, in many respects, is well judged and well framed, but Amendment No. 1 refers to a mighty and gaping void.
	I confess to a little confusion in trying to equate the noble Lord's remarks generally about Clause 3 with Amendment No. 4, which would put the promotion of competition back into Clause 3. The noble Lord seeks to remove competition from Clause 3(1)(a) and to restore it in Clause 3(1)(b). I must be honest and say that I do not see the logic of that, especially in light of the noble Lord's remarks when moving Amendment No. 1.

Lord Puttnam: The key word is "principal". The intention of the three amendments is to establish a clear hierarchy. The principal objectives are those of the citizen and the consumer but we are not pretending for one second that the interests of competition are non-existent. They have a legitimate place within the hierarchy, but a subsidiary place.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble Lord very much for that clarification. The problem is, that would leave the provision in the key or foundation clause, in terms of the tenor of the Bill. I urge the noble Lord to consider Clause 3(3)(a), which gives him exactly what he wants—a reference to competition but in a clearly subsidiary place. It refers to Ofcom's duties as being
	"the desirability of promoting competition in relevant markets".
	Granted that does not deal with regionality but a subsequent paragraph does so. I flag that up because the noble Lord may on reflection see some merit in my remarks. I will refrain from further comment until moving the next amendment.

Lord Fowler: If I may say so, I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, does not take the noble Lord's advice. He has well applied the logic of what he has been saying in the Bill. The Bill gives Ofcom a number of functions and duties. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that list goes on for about two pages. In the words of Dr Howells in another place:
	"The duties form a hierarchy, which is designed to assist regulators in resolving potentially conflicting regulatory objectives".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 29/2/00; col. 234.]
	In other words, one somehow needs to order the duties and obligations.
	The point that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, correctly addressed is this: what are the principal aims, duties and obligations? Then one goes on to some of the others, which are important but not the overwhelming ones. For all the reasons that he and others have advanced, the fact is that the public interest—that of the consumer, the ordinary man in the street—must be the paramount, overwhelming and principal interest so far as the duties placed on Ofcom are concerned. I was also very struck by the words of Nick Lovegrove of McKinsey's—it is not renowned as some curious left-wing organisation—who says that Ofcom will need to remind itself of its primary objective to protect the interests of citizens and consumers, and that that will require constant vigilance. As the noble Lord said, that is not a plaintive voice from the consumer lobby, but hard-edged practical advice.
	Basically, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said. The public interest is paramount. His proposal is sensible. It clarifies the position so far as Ofcom and the public are concerned, and conceivably so far as the courts are concerned if there is any challenge of that kind. I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he said.

Baroness Buscombe: The Bill grants extensive powers to Ofcom, so it is of paramount importance to try to get the general duties of Ofcom right from the start. I therefore entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that any ambiguity should be dealt with now. To that end, although it is key for Ofcom to further the interests of consumers, sometimes the market comes up against the wider interests of citizens. The general duties of Ofcom should, we agree, take account of that as a priority.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, I believe that in practice any court would find that the duties as a whole set out in Clause 3 were by definition "principal", because Clause 3 sets the scene and everything flows from that. I note what, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said in relation to judicial review. It is important to negate so far as we can at this stage any question of ambiguity. I therefore see that it would be preferable for the Bill to ensure—it would assist not only lawyers, but all of us and the board of Ofcom in particular—that Ofcom has a clear steer in its remit that "effective competition" should not simply be considered in the round, but qualified to ensure a clear focus on specific national, regional and local communications markets throughout the UK.
	Serious questions and points have been raised by Members of the Committee from all parties for the Minister to answer. Given that much of the sentiment and principle behind what they have said today was set out in their speeches at Second Reading, it is hoped that the Minister is ready to answer them this afternoon.

Baroness Blackstone: The quality and depth of the debate on Ofcom's general duties is a strong indication of their importance to Ofcom, its stakeholders and, of course, the public. The Government have therefore continued to look at the duties to ensure that they are right, and that they give a clear direction to Ofcom and some certainty to its stakeholders. The Government do not accept that what we have ended up with is ambiguous in the way implied by some speakers.
	The clause looks different from the one published in draft last year. We have worked very hard to take on board concerns that its drafting did not fully reflect our policy intentions. We have listened and responded. I tell my noble friend Lord Puttnam that that is why we have changed the clause. The Bill in its totality delivers for both consumers and citizens. It reflects our view that the market does not always deliver in the public interest. That has been the underlying position taken by most speakers in the debate. We of course accept it, and the Bill as currently drafted reflects that there are circumstances in which consumer interests are outweighed by the interests of the wider community.
	We wanted to be sure that the general duties reflected that more fully, so that Ofcom would be able to make decisions for consumers and for citizens, and would not be open to challenge if, in any particular case, it decided that the interests of people as citizens outweighed those of people as consumers. Clause 3(1) puts that policy intent into legal drafting. Although my noble friend Lord Alli raised the spectre of judicial review, I am not sure of the legal basis for his argument.
	It is of no practical significance whether the drafting gives Ofcom a "principal" duty or not. Accepting Amendment No. 1 would make no legal difference whatever. I will resist it, because it would only confuse and not simplify. The clause is complex. Its subsections, particularly subsections (1) and (2), are very closely interwoven. Of course, the provisions need to be seen alongside other specific duties set out throughout the Bill. In some cases, balancing or reconciling the duties will be a difficult task for Ofcom. I accept that entirely, but we should set out the overarching principles and specific objectives and let Ofcom weigh them up as it sees fit in each case.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to two cooks in the kitchen. I am tempted to try a pun on the subject of curry, but I will not go down that particular road. I honestly believe that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues will be perfectly able to handle the overarching principles and specific objectives that have been set for them in the Bill.
	I think that it would be helpful if I tried to explain briefly how the first three subsections of the clause worked. Subsection (1) sets out the general principles that will apply when Ofcom will carry out its functions. Subsection (2) gives more detailed objectives in the specific areas of Ofcom's responsibility, covering the breadth of the Bill to which the general duties apply. Subsection (3) then lists those other issues to which Ofcom must have regard in performing its duties.
	Having set out how the clause is structured, I would like to explain why I feel that I have to resist the other amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, does not like the formulation of "community as a whole". Amendment No. 3 proposes a different form of words. I am also aware that others believe that the Bill should refer to "citizens", but it would not have been right to do so. In UK law generally, references to "citizen" are invariably bound up with the concept of nationality, as in Clause 4. However, that is not what is meant in Clause 3. We would get into an awful legal confusion if we were to go down that route, because "community as a whole" is right legally. It may appear somewhat dry, but quite often legislation does.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Would the Minister accept that the Government have recently legislated and used the word "citizen" time and again in relation to citizenship education, which came into schools last autumn? There is absolutely no confusion as to what "citizen" and "citizenship" mean when used in that legislation.

Baroness Blackstone: I believe that in that legislation, the term "citizenship education" is used as a term of art to describe a particular part of the curriculum. I do not believe that there is particular reference to "citizens" in that legislation. We refer to pupils and students. The noble Lord's intervention does not therefore alter the validity of what I said.
	The fact that "community as a whole" may appear somewhat dry does not mean that anything other than an important duty is involved. In practice, it means that Ofcom will be able to consider some of the issues that impact on us as part of a much wider community.
	The Bill will deliver in the public interest in terms of, for example, standards and quality, ensuring universal service, maintaining a strong public service tradition and promoting media literacy. All of those are enormously important objectives.
	In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, Clause 3(1)(b) gives Ofcom the means to consider the public interest in carrying out its functions. In legislative terms, it makes explicit the commitment to the citizen, as well as to the consumer, that the Government have always considered to be central to the Bill.
	That leads me to our concern that the amendment does not adequately express the full range of issues that "community as a whole" does. By explicitly referring to "public, civil and cultural life", it restricts Ofcom to considering only those issues. They may be broad, but they are not necessarily broad enough. We could have a lively and interesting debate about what could be included in such a list and that, I am afraid to say, is where the danger lies.
	"Community as a whole" encapsulates the ideas of "public, civil and cultural life", but it is not restricted to those concepts alone. It is about those issues that can impact on society. We will touch on those issues on many occasions in our discussions of the Bill; I refer, for example, to standards, quality, democratic debate and universal service.
	We also question the focus of Amendment No. 3, which would require Ofcom to support the communications industry in contributing to public, civil and cultural life. Ofcom's duty under Clause 3(1)(b) is to further the interests of the community as a whole. In doing so, of course, it may require business to do something new, or differently, or to stop doing something altogether. However, business should focus primarily on providing for the market. There may be other means, beyond what business can do, of furthering the interests of the community as a whole.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 follow the drafting proposed by the joint scrutiny committee. I hope that your Lordships recognise that we have taken on board if not the words of the joint committee then much of their spirit.
	I regret that I have to say to my noble friend Lord Puttnam that we must go our separate ways on the amendment. The Government have underpinned the duty to further the interests of consumers by promoting competition. The two are closely linked. Consumers benefit from fair, open and competitive markets. I am not sure that there is the same link between competition and the community. Indeed, the wording of Amendment No. 4, by referring to "wherever possible" instead of "where appropriate", would give competition a primacy over everything else in furthering not only consumers' but also the community's interest. Sometimes competition may not be in the interests of consumers or the community as a whole and "where appropriate" gives Ofcom the flexibility to consider what is the best approach in each circumstance. "Where possible" does not enable the same freedom of action. It is important that we maintain that flexibility for Ofcom to operate and interpret the legislation effectively.
	I say to my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg—and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who partially supported their comments—that I am extremely puzzled by the references of several noble Lords, including both my noble friends, to the term "co-equality". We do not use that phrase in the Bill or refer to it as a concept. Clause 3(1) creates a single general duty to further the interests of "consumers" and of,
	"the community as a whole".
	The rest of Clause 3 merely expands on that.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Bragg, who quoted extensively from Barry Diller's speech, that I agree that there must be a balance of regulation in the market. There is no question in the substantial Bill of abandoning that balance. We are not the United States. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who referred to the United States, that we shall hear more about that in relation to the Bill. However, this is not the United States; this is the United Kingdom. Nor does the Bill introduce a United States model to the regulation of United Kingdom communications. I do not believe that he or any other serious commentator would say that the regulatory framework that the Bill will introduce reflects a commitment to unfettered capitalism, to use Mr Diller's terms to describe some of the developments that have taken place in the United States. More regulation, not less, may be needed in the United States but, fortunately, I am not sitting in Congress defending United States legislation. We must be careful throughout our consideration of the Bill about making direct comparisons that really do not apply.
	My noble friend Lord Alli is absolutely right that clever executives—indeed, he is one of them—and lawyers will try to challenge the regulator. However, it does not follow that the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam would make the situation any better. Nor do I accept his contention that we have created an equality of interest between consumer and market interests, for reasons that I have already given. Equality of interest is, if anything, between the consumer and the community. That is what Clause 3 states.
	I have more or less answered all of the questions that were put to me. I conclude by saying that I do not believe that the effect of the amendment is, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, to create a hierarchy in which competition is subordinate. Indeed, the actual effect is the reverse, because Ofcom would be under a duty to discharge its duty to consumers and the community as a whole by promoting competition wherever possible. Although some have argued for that, I do not believe that that is what my noble friend intends. In light of that and of my arguments for the Bill as it stands, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may speak for the first time during the passage of the Bill. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I feel no need to apologise for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate. Indeed, I have probably placed myself in the debt of your Lordships' House for having kept silent on that occasion.
	I agree with those who have acknowledged the debt owed to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for explaining an extremely complicated subject and producing a report of the scrutiny committee which clarified issues. That is an almost unprecedented exercise during the litigation process. The noble Lord is to be warmly congratulated on having achieved what verges on a miracle. I am grateful to him.
	My point is simple. The Minister did not refer to Amendment No. 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred. I wonder why the noble Baroness has not said that Amendment No. 3 makes the position much clearer. The Bill as drafted states,
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters".
	Hardly a Bill that passes through your Lordships' House is not sprinkled with unarguable pieties. I rather believe that this is one of them. If the Minister has in her brief a fairly extended explanation of what those words really mean, it would be much appreciated. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity of learning. What would the noble Baroness say to a member of the board of Ofcom if he or she were to ask what the Government meant by those words?

Baroness Blackstone: First, I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Coming afresh to any issue can often give rise to a greater understanding than by those who have become over-immersed in the detail.
	I endorse everything the noble Lord said about the huge contribution made by my noble friend Lord Puttnam to our understanding of these issues. I was also grateful—I do not think that I said so—for his recognition of the extent to which the Government have listened to his words of wisdom and those of the members of his joint scrutiny committee.
	In response to the debate, I spoke about Amendment No. 3 for quite some time. Rather than repeating my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will be able to note what I said when he reads Hansard tomorrow. I agree with him. I have made clear why I do not think that the amendment helps very much.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The substance of my question is this. What is meant by the words,
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters"?
	There seems a potential conflict in those words. I should like to know whether the Government have any view. If the Government are unable to explain what those words mean, I shall drift in the direction of assuming that it is just one of those mild pieties which do not mean very much.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: As joint author of Amendment No. 3, I support what the noble Lord says. I find it difficult to understand why our phrases were rejected. They were far more explicit than the words,
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole".
	The wording of the amendment may not be perfect. It may not include everything that should be included. I had hoped for a fuller explanation of why the words in the Bill as drafted are preferable to those we suggest.

Baroness Blackstone: I think that I have given as full an explanation as I can of why the words on the face of the Bill are preferable to those of Amendment No. 3. The words,
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters",
	are used to restrain Ofcom from attempting to further the interests of the community in matters which have nothing to do with communications. I think that everyone can see the common sense of that. Confident as I am in the ability of the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues to do their job in a sensible way, it is important that we restrict in legislation the extent of their operation. That is what those words are meant to do.

Lord Puttnam: To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement. With the agreement of my colleagues on the joint scrutiny committee, we shall not press any amendments to a vote today. However, it begs enormous questions. First, the issue is relatively simple. I hope that the situation is not indicative of an overall government obduracy when dealing with the many amendments that will emerge over the next dozen days in Committee. That worries me.
	Secondly, where do the Government obtain their advice? I have talked to every industry professional I could. I have talked to every regulator who I believed had experience of this area. The advice is consistent. It is all of a piece with the amendment. I have also talked to a number of lawyers. The Government's record in taking on legally the commercial sector is not strong. Perhaps it could be said that the Minister is praying in aid the noble Lord, Lord Currie. I should be impressed if the Minister can assure us that the wording of the Bill is that which the noble Lord, Lord Currie, would most like to enable him to deal with vexatious, difficult and conflicting issues as they arise. I doubt it. So from where are the Government getting their advice? I am happy to withdraw the amendment and look forward to returning to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 3:
	Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) to support and further the communication industry's capacity to contribute to public, civil and cultural life"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I thank the Minister for her remarks. I should like to read them more carefully and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 3, line 7, at end insert "and to uphold the principles of public service broadcasting"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will describe Amendment No. 5 as another "unarguable piety". I accept that. But some pieties are more pious than others; and some are more useful. I like to think that this is a particularly useful piety. I was struck by the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord Bragg, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Crickhowell, stated explicitly that they wanted the principles of public service broadcasting to be upheld. I confess that those of us who bat on this side of the argument need to get our act together before Report.
	Clause 3(1) seems to me to be the foundation clause of the Bill. To insert in the Bill the words in Amendment No. 5 would have great merit. Clause 3(1)(b) would then read as follows:
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters and to uphold the principles of public service broadcasting".
	I should like to think that in the long dark nights during which he or she, the director-general of Ofcom, will have to construe this mammoth work—500 pages of dense parliamentary drafting—it will be of great help to have more specific general guidance in so doing. I agree with those who said that the phrase,
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole",
	in relation to communication matters is not nearly as helpful as it could and should be. The sense I have so far is that people would like to see the time-honoured phrase, "public service broadcasting", find a place at this particular juncture in the Bill bearing in mind that the preamble refers to the Bill making provision,
	"about the regulation of broadcasting".
	There is very little in the Bill which goes further than that. Even Clause 3, over 100 lines of print, has virtually no further light to cast upon the tender subsection 3(1)(b). I could not see any reference to it at any point in the remainder of this long clause. The whole bias and balance of the clause, and, indeed of the Bill as a whole, concerns technicalities of broadcasting, the mechanics of broadcasting, market force considerations and competition considerations. I do not think anyone will say that those are not vitally important, but those of us who support the previous set of amendments and, I hope, this set of amendments will say with a loud voice that there has to be a hierarchy of values, at the head of which should be issues concerning public service broadcasting.
	What about public service broadcasting? It is interesting that on 5th May 1999 in this House we had a debate entitled "Public Service Broadcasting", advanced, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Falkland.

Lord McNally: A House of Lords moment!

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is interesting that in the course of that debate the good Lord McIntosh, who I am delighted to see in his place, speaking for the Government, said:
	"The obligations on public service broadcasters to entertain, inform, educate and challenge the audience into new thinking . . . are fundamental to the public service broadcasting concept and,
	this is important,
	"apply not only to the BBC but to all broadcasters, commercial, free-to-air and, in so far as it can be achieved, to satellite, cable and other converging technologies".—[Official Report, 5/5/99; col.754.]
	That is crucial to the sense of the amendment. This is not a set of value issues to be confined to the BBC and those other parts of the broadcasting empire which have express statutory public service duties cast upon them. This is for the whole of broadcasting.
	I share the fear expressed in the first group of amendments about the way the world is going and the inexorable commercial pressures that bear down on the commercial producers, whether of sound or vision. One has only to consider the decline in advertising revenue to appreciate what further pressures they are under. In a sense, not only would it help the director-general to have something more crisp and understandable at the heart of the Bill, such as is proposed by the amendment; it would help those within the commercial radio and television world who care about standards, the product and original material to stand up to some of those who would simply have them follow the short and brutal course.
	I am also confused as to why the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, whose own cultural credentials are impeccable, was so unsympathetic to the first set of amendments. On 26th November the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a landmark press notice which summarised the provisions of the Bill and stated four "key principles", the fourth of which is,
	"ensuring that public service principles remain at the heart of British broadcasting".
	The noble Baroness, in responding to the amendment may say, "Of course, that is exactly what we want". Why not say that? Why not put it there flat on the face of the Bill with no ifs and buts and no wishy-washy language such as one can describe the language in Clause 3(1)(b)? Let us have it plain and simple.
	Clause 12 deals with the content board. There may be some little solace in that. Clause 312 deals with the standards code, which is an important provision in the Bill. However, without Clause 3 being absolutely firm in both what it says about values and in terms of the hierarchy of values as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, those clauses are not adequate. As it stands, Clause 12 is a broken reed. I believe that the flag of public service broadcasting should fly from the masthead of the Bill very clearly.
	I draw attention to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, at Second Reading. He is someone who understands the realities of modern broadcasting and he put in rather chilling terms the extent to which the commercial pressures on the commercial sector are driving content, quality, originality and so forth—the breadth of cultural output—down and down. He said, in effect, "Do not rely upon the commercial sector to go on providing even the level of broadness and quality output it does currently". That is why, again, surely we must have at the heart of the Bill something unequivocal and legally enforceable so that the director-general does not have to scrape around to find justification for what could be a very unpopular measure with commercial broadcasters but has something quite clear.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred and I believe will again refer to the Professor in Colorado who has done a great deal of work on the whole issue of what happens in America. I notice that the noble Baroness said, "Well, America is America and we are different". What is said by Professor Michael Tracey in his book on public service broadcasting in the States in 1998 and in his recent essay commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust—if noble Lords do not have a copy I suggest they obtain one—is of the greatest purport to what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. He quotes Ted Turner, scarcely a wimp, who refers to the loss of "so much diversity of thought" as a result of the way American broadcasting has gone. Walter Cronkite, one of the great names, refers to America,
	"producing a population of political, economic and scientific ignoramuses at a point in time when a lot more knowledge, rather than less, is needed for the survival of democracy".
	Dan Rather of CBS states that "we are less" because of the way that modern television is going. That is one of the great broadcasting statesmen of America stating that we are less because of what has happened and we want to ensure that there is more.
	The amendment would go some way towards shoring up the values I believe everyone in the House and the Government want to see shored up. We are dealing with cultural goods, not goods at large. To try to apply to the cultural goods of television and radio the same sort of competitive framework that might apply to beans or hamburgers is not good enough. The noble Baroness will berate me roundly for that somewhat over the top description of what the Bill does, but presently it does not do enough. It does not signal clearly and with acclamation the importance of public service standards.
	I should like to mention just one more quote before I conclude. It comes from one of the real elder statesmen of the industry, Sir Denis Forman, who gave the McTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Festival nearly 20 years ago. He ended his speech by saying:
	"If the top people in broadcasting become organisation men, if they become professional managers, if they are solely interested in profit or in efficiency"—
	that is a word that one finds endlessly in this Bill—
	"they will fail. For the laws governing the production of good programmes are mysterious and demand from time to time that efficiency should take second place . . . There is an unbridgeable gap between the logic of business management and the laws of the creative world . . . For efficiency is the enemy of originality and it can smother talent, which is of its nature non-conformist".
	As Members of the Committee will know, he was the most distinguished head of Granada Television for a long time, during which he worked in close partnership with the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, who I hope will contribute later to the debate. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the Government will allow my amendment to find its place on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I did not take part in the firing of the opening salvos for the soul of Ofcom simply to avoid prolonging the debate unnecessarily. I trust that my amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, will indicate that I am broadly in support of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others. However, the noble Lord might be wise to reflect on the observation made by the Minister that "appropriate" is a better word than "possible" in terms of the promotion of competition.
	I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of Scottish Radio, a non-executive director of Johnston Press, and chairman of RAJAR, which is the joint research body between the BBC and commercial radio. With the permission of the Committee, it is not my intention to reiterate that declaration of interest before every intervention that I may make. It could all too easily sound like a boast of experience, rather than a declaration of interest.
	In the old days there was an obligation reflected in the Lord Normanbrook letter to the then Home Secretary, or in the Act of Parliament setting up the old IBA, that there had to be a wide range and balance in programming—Xbalance" was construed in the sense of a balanced diet, rather than balanced in the sense of political impartiality for which there was separate provision.
	In an age of many services, all of which are serving niche markets, I fully recognise that it is unreasonable to impose the obligation to provide a programme catering for a wide range of tastes on an individual station, or television channel, and that that obligation is properly transferred to the regulator as set out under this clause. However, my amendments would transpose the phrase in brackets—namely, "taken as a whole"—so that it qualifies only the necessity to provide a wide range of programming. It is still perfectly possible, and, in my view, desirable, to demand that individual services achieve high quality. Therefore, my amendment is mainly syntactical but with a philosophical undertone.

Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has rendered us a service by drawing our attention to one of the strangest features of this Bill—this vast two-volumed Bill—that it is not until we reach Clauses 260 and 261 that we find mention of "public service" broadcasting in any detail. Those clauses are most important. For the first time in any Bill we now have a definition of "public service" broadcasting; indeed, a very detailed definition and one which we shall no doubt debate at greater length in due course. I am sure that Ministers will be glad to hear that I do not wish to pursue too many of those issues at this stage.
	It is curious that we do not see public service broadcasting mentioned in the duties under the Bill because it is a key component of the whole legislative machine, so to speak, that is now under consideration. Another feature of those clauses identifies a subject widely misunderstood by the general public. The latter normally assume that public service broadcasting equals the BBC. But the Bill actual defines such broadcasting and imposes public service obligations not on the BBC but on Channels 3, 4 and 5 and on the "public teletext service". The obligations imposed on those providers are quite detailed.
	The licence holders for Channel 3—I no longer have to declare an interest in this respect, although I was for many years a director of HTV—must provide a sufficient amount of programming that reflects, supports and stimulates the diverse cultural makeup of the UK through music, drama, comedy and other visual and performing arts; that gives a comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and of current affairs at regional UK and international level; that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities in the UK; and is made outside the M25.
	The BBC is required to follow those guidelines as part of its agreement. I have no doubt that that is also a subject to which we shall return later. However, although the public service obligations are very tightly defined for Channel 3 and the other channels, they are not defined anything like so tightly for the BBC. Indeed, if Members of the Committee refer to questions 528 to 530 of the evidence given to the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, it will be seen that I pressed Mr Gavyn Davies, the chairman of the BBC, very hard to tell me what the BBC understood "public service broadcasting" to be. He was very careful not to give me a clear answer. If he gave a clear answer, he knew perfectly well that he would find himself facing some of the obligations imposed on the other television companies. Indeed, he sought to argue that, as they are obliged to provide entertainment, all "entertainment" actually met the definition of "public service broadcasting"—or, at least that we should not challenge entertainment as not coming within that remit. However, some entertainment clearly does.
	It means that the obligations placed on the BBC are rather different from those placed on other broadcasters. These are also topics to which we shall want to return. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right to say that public service broadcasting is one of the jewels in the crown of British television that we ought to be addressing right at the start of our consideration of the duties of Ofcom. It is quite extraordinary that we have this Bill with no reference to the latter being a primary purpose until we come to those clauses to which I referred and the particular application of those concerns. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why Ofcom has not been given the task of upholding this important part of our broadcasting arrangements.

Lord Bragg: I have a few brief points to make following the magnificent rallying cry for public service broadcasting made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I do not believe that my first point has been mentioned, so I shall be brief. In the run-up to the BBC's charter renewal in a few years' time, the media environment taken as a whole is likely to be very hostile. It is even more important for the BBC, which is the cornerstone, but not the sole guardian, of public service broadcasting, that we accept the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that public services should, for the sake of clarity, be placed at the top of the hierarchy and put on the face of the Bill as soon as possible. That will be a great protection for the BBC. Indeed, the British public would not forgive us if we did not protect them in that regard at the start of what will be a most difficult renewal process.
	Secondly, I should point out to my great and noble friend the Minister that she will dismiss American experience at her peril! Barry Diller saw the future, and he said, "avoid it".

Lord McNally: I had added my name to the first group of amendments, but like the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I shall restrict myself. However, both sets of amendments cover the same kind of thoughts. I shall lead on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Many interest groups outside the industry, such as the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, the National Consumer Council and other such bodies, expressed the concern that the balance of the Bill between the interests of the citizen and the marketplace was wrong. It is wrong not to recognise that imbalance.
	It would also be wrong not to recognise that the Government have tried to meet those concerns. I echo—I do not think it was a warning; it was certainly not a threat from such a gentle creature—the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the way the Bill goes through Committee will depend a great deal on whether ministerial responses comprise "No, no, no, no", with little regard to the fact that, as far as I can see, these amendments are tabled constructively to make a good Bill better rather than to snarl at the Government's timetable or anything like that.
	If the idea of the Ministers or Whips is some exercise in macho whipping, they will run into trouble, which will be of their making and not of those of us who are trying to make a good Bill better. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, it is not the Bill's critics who have been saying that what is missing from British broadcasting is the wonderful, entrepreneurial, dynamic skill of American management; it is the Bill's promoters who have said that across the Atlantic there is a better world. Tessa Jowell said that by bringing in the Americans we would obtain the best of both worlds. The Minister has to listen to some of the wise words of those who have gone through the American experience.
	My noble friend Lord Thomson referred to the two cooks. The Minister was tempted to try the curry pun. I warn her that the origin of curry, so I am told, is to mash certain tainted meat. One of the worries about the Bill is that although, as my noble friend Lord Phillips said, the Minister has impeccable credentials in defending public service and public enterprise, many of the arguments for the Bill, certainly in the other place by Kim Howells—that new convert to the perfection of the market—have been about rigorous competition. It is no good the Government at the other end of the building having Kim Howells and John Whittingdale marching arm in arm towards the Adam Smith Institute while the Minister at this end says all the right conciliatory things because she knows that there is not the same reception at this end of the building for that kind of tosh.
	She must realise that a matter of genuine concern is the commitment to what was a stroke of genius in the development of public service broadcasting. Reading a history of the BBC I was told that the mantra, "educate, entertain and inform" as a kind of job description for the BBC was Lord Reith's invention. Thank God he came up with it, because from it grew a concept of broadcasting not only for the BBC but also for the commercial broadcasters when they were introduced, that has done us a great service.
	The real concern is that when Tony Ball of Sky gave evidence to our committee and was asked what his ideal of public service broadcasting was, he referred to Australia. That is normal, he being Australian, but it gave the game away. We fear that without the protection provided by the amendment there are forces at work that wish to drive the public service commitment into the ineffectual ghetto it occupies in the United States, Canada and Australia, where that battle has already been lost. We can still win the battle by putting such amendments into the Bill. I hope that the Minister, about whose interests and priorities I have no doubt, will see the logic of what we are trying to do.

Lord Fowler: Having slightly disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on his previous intervention, I shall put that right immediately by agreeing strongly with his proposal in this amendment. If we accept the concept of a hierarchy of duties to assist the regulator, it seems that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, one of the most fundamental is to uphold the principles of public service broadcasting. That is a fundamental value that we should hold dear.
	That is something we will want Ofcom to continue to value. For once public service broadcasting is not, in the immortal words of my noble friend Lord Peyton, "a mild, unarguable piety"; its remit is set out in great detail in Clause 260. The only difficulty, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, is that it comes very late in the Bill. It seems that whatever else the amendment does, it puts public service broadcasting at the beginning of the Bill and states the value that we place on it. That is fundamentally important.
	Public service broadcasting is not just a pseudonym for the BBC. The BBC does uphold those principles, but so do other television broadcasters. One might say that those principles are, and should remain, the characteristics of British broadcasting. That is my view. The principles are fundamental values: the dissemination of information; the provision of education and entertainment; the broadcast of cultural activity in the United Kingdom; and what I perhaps value above all as an ex-journalist, comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs with an overarching provision within the legislation that such broadcasting should be impartial.
	It seems that that is what we should be aiming to achieve. We do not always do it, but those are the values we seek after. It is important that we have objective reporting. We do not try to force some editorial line down the throats of the public. We set out the facts and the position as best it can be seen and allow the public to make up their minds on that presentation. There has been some criticism of the coverage of the Iraq war—particularly that of the BBC; less so that of ITN. For my part, we in this country appear to have become a nation of armchair editors rather than armchair generals. Obviously, mistakes are inevitable. But, overall, both the BBC and ITN provided reasonably balanced coverage of the conflict. I shall not try to defend every part of it, but it seemed to adhere to the best traditions of British broadcasting.
	I speak as a strong supporter of the action taken. But I do not want my news accompanied by flags waving in the corner of the screen, let alone background music, which was the case in one or two other broadcasts. There is a contrast between news coverage or objective reporting and propaganda. We should be very clear on the distinction and very protective of our traditions in that regard. One can get the balance wrong, but that should not prevent us aiming for such a balance.
	I strongly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the other comments made. We would be fools to downplay the principles of public service broadcasting in this country. It is worth fighting for. We should put it at the top of the page as one of the principal aims of any government with any sense in this country.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am the third participant in Committee to confess that I was not present at Second Reading. This is therefore my opening salvo. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that he had been at a funeral. My noble friend Lord Peyton, like the 18th century Margrave of Baden, said that by his absence he was doing a service to your Lordships' House.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend has entirely misheard or misunderstood me and does me great injustice. I thought that I made perfectly clear that I was present at Second Reading, but, unlike other noble Lords, in the capacity of a learner who wishes to increase his understanding.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I delete the reference to the Margrave of Baden, who was absent and necessarily also silent. My noble friend was clearly silent. He must forgive me, as I was not in the House, and, therefore, could not have known that he was present in that capacity.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: He might have listened more carefully to what I was saying on this occasion.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I was absent. I offer an apology to my noble friend Lord Peyton. Due to a particular application of Murphy's Law, whenever the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wishes to bring forward a Bill for Second Reading in this House, the business managers always schedule the debate for a time when I am attending a meeting of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body. It happened with the Licensing Bill and again with this one.
	While my noble friend Lord Peyton was doing a service to noble Lords by remaining silent, I was in Kilkenny and Tipperary doing a service to myself. I learnt for the first time that, in another application of Murphy's Law, when in 1495 one of my direct ancestors burnt down the cathedral on the Rock of Cashel, his explanation to King Henry VII was that he had been misinformed that the archbishop was inside it.
	I speak from an extremity of the House, topographically rather than politically. It may be due to that topographical quirk that I happen to be personally nearest the grave of Lord Reith. As someone concerned to remain audible to the Committee, if we were not going to discuss public service broadcasting until Clause 260, the noise of Lord Reith turning in his grave would become extremely trying to Members as far from the main business of the Committee as I am. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, whose rearrangement of a particular parenthesis was exceptionally helpful and would have been approved of by Lord Reith, for whom I am temporarily speaking .
	For the remaining stages of the Bill, I have no interest to declare. But I was twice resident in the United States for a total of nearly four years. I recall very vividly how much the public sector broadcasting channel meant to exiles from this land in the United States.
	As I recall, in a recent poll on what this country means abroad, the largest percentage—13 per cent—said that it was represented by British broadcasting. There is no question that the BBC plays a significant part in that reputation being enjoyed across the world. Its role is superior to anything else, including, obviously, the influence of the parliamentary tradition.
	For understandable reasons, American Bills have double-barrelled names. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, implied that the Munroe doctrine was becoming the Jowell-Munroe doctrine. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it was a British Bill rather than an American one. I join the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and his other supporters in hoping that we can have the reference to public service broadcasting included in the Bill at the earliest opportunity and prove that it is British rather than American.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sure that noble Lords do not wish me to probe at any depth or to seek to penetrate the murky ancestral past of my noble friend. But, as the debate continues, I feel that my status as someone wishing to gain understanding rather than to impart it is quite safe and almost unique in the Committee. Everybody else has so much knowledge.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and congratulate him on producing something crisp and understanding—those were his words. Unlike so many, he matches his words with performance. We all owe him a great debt for that. I wish that he would go a little further—he will have other opportunities—to say what he means by the principles of public service broadcasting. Not only would I like to see the term in the Bill, I wish to have a clearer understanding of the principles. Perhaps for reasons of vulgar curiosity, I wish to know who are ideal exemplars of the principles. As yet, that has been hidden from me. I hope to be told during the debate who is regarded as a perfect exemplar.
	I echo the words addressed to the noble Baroness by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about not saying "No, no, no" throughout. If she stuck to that negative attitude—I am sure that she will not—it might provoke even reasonable, patient people like me to protest. There is a deplorable tendency, once a Bill is launched, for the Minister sponsoring it—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows this very well—to develop a maternal love for it. They will not have anybody peeping into the perambulator and saying, "What a hideous baby".

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I express great sympathy for the points made about public service broadcasting and its importance. I have made similar comments in earlier debates on the subject. We must never take public service broadcasting for granted in this country. It is good to see in this Bill that this is the first government to try to define public service broadcasting. I look forward to the more detailed debates on that later. For the moment, I support what has been said about the need at the very beginning to strengthen our definitions, statements and the order regarding public service broadcasting.
	I also want to express sympathy with the concerns voiced today by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me in the hope that, as Committee stage develops, the very helpful and wise interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, are not always responded to in a negative way from the Government Front Bench.
	Perhaps I may turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, has referred. These amendments seem to me to restore what must have been intended by the Government all along. Given that there are quality thresholds for the granting of broadcasting licences, legislation ought not to open the door to the suggestion that achieving the necessary quality is a question of average performance or that the better programmes in some way make up for the less adequate ones.
	Quality is a subjective word, but one which regulators have had no difficulty in embracing in the past. I suggest that it is logical for the range of programmes taken as a whole to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests which are represented in a great variety of the populace, whereas it does not seem so logical for quality to be determined by an average. In any case, where would this stop? Would the appearance of programmes judged to have reached new heights of quality mean that poorer offerings would be admissible on a "taken together" basis? Surely not.

Lord Hussey of North Bradley: I have listened with great interest to this debate. I intervene with some hesitation having spent the whole of the holiday in bed. I hope that the Committee will excuse my somewhat halting few words. I declare an interest, having been chairman of the BBC for 10 years. I think that that is the longest anyone has ever done it and I do not suppose that anyone will ever try to do it for longer. During most of that time I tried to uphold public service broadcasting, which I thought was the hallmark of the BBC and which is what the audience—the subscribers, the people who pay the licence fee—expect.
	So how does one define public service broadcasting? Speaking from memory, Lord Reith defined it as providing the best of all types of broadcasting, of whatever nature, that raised standards and tempted the audience to reach, in what they watched and what they enjoyed, higher standards than they would otherwise have reached had they concentrated entirely on the less exciting or less honourable parts of the national press.
	I think that we more or less succeeded in doing that. I hope that we did. In some ways, it can be seen more clearly in the World Service, which I think is generally acknowledged to be the highest level of broadcasting—no longer only on radio but on television too. But that, to me, is what public service broadcasting should be. It is about higher standards across the whole range of output and about tempting audiences to look at and enjoy programmes which they would not otherwise have done. In that way, not only is the worth of the BBC increased, but also, through the audiences, the value of the BBC is increased and its important hold on the British public.

Baroness Buscombe: I support these amendments. I am tempted to ask myself whether the reason that this important duty for Ofcom to uphold the principles of public service broadcasting is not on the face of the Bill in the early stages, under the general duties for Ofcom, is that somehow the Government have taken it for granted that these principles would be upheld.
	I hope that the Government will realise—indeed, noble Lords have made the point absolutely clear today on all sides of the Committee—that nothing can be taken for granted. In a sense, the words that I was going to say were taken from me by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Nothing can be taken for granted. There is a need for flexibility from the Minister and each of these amendments can do no harm but a great deal of good.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As this is my first intervention in Committee, it might be as well if I say something about the more general challenges that have been made today. The Government have been accused of marching towards the Adam Smith Institute approach of abandoning the principles of public sector broadcasting in favour of American or Australian broadcasting and have been warned about the danger of a culture of saying, "No, no, no" to amendments.
	None of that represents the position of my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Davies or myself in the way in which we address this Committee. We are looking at the amendments objectively. We are trying to understand what they mean and what they intend. We are trying to make an objective judgment on whether they improve the Bill. If they are defective but their intention is to improve the Bill, certainly we shall look at any alternatives that we can think of or, in discussion with anyone who is proposing amendments, we shall seek to find a way forward. Our attitude is not simply to oppose every amendment on principle.
	It may be that the number of resists is more than the number of considers. It is because when we look at the amendments we find that, in our view, they do not make any improvements to the Bill. But if that is the case, we shall say so and will explain why. If there is disagreement about a matter on which we have sympathy we shall try to pursue it and make any improvements that are possible.
	I turn now to these amendments. I have particular difficulty with Amendment No. 5. That is because of the wonderful phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, introduced into the debate; that is, "unarguable piety". I think that phrase will occur over and over again in our debate—at least I shall find myself using it.
	What the Bill would propose is a duty to uphold the principles of public service broadcasting in the general duties of Ofcom. What the principles of public service broadcasting are, the amendment does not say. Yet, in introducing it, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that these would be legally enforceable on Ofcom. I simply do not understand that. I do not understand how a statement can be made about the principles of public service broadcasting without ever seeking to define what is meant. How can such a statement be other than simply a statement of principle—a wish—rather than of actual content and improvement?
	In saying that, perhaps I should explain something about the structure of the Bill because a number of noble Lords said that it is terrible that the real consideration of public service broadcasting occurs only at Clause 260 and that it should be higher up in the Bill. That suggests that what comes earlier in the Bill can be in conflict with or more important than what is later. That is not the case.
	Part I is about the functions of Ofcom—not just the functions in relation to broadcasting but the functions in relation to the whole telecommunications area. There is reference in Clause 3 to quality broadcasting. Clause (3)(2)(c) refers to the requirement on Ofcom to secure,
	"the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of television and radio services which (taken as a whole) are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests".
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, called that "wishy-washy". I am sure that Lord Reith would not have thought it good enough as a definition, but it is a flag for the more detailed consideration set out later in the Bill. While it may be wishy-washy, it is better than the absence of anything at all, which is what we have in this amendment.

Lord Crickhowell: I am genuinely puzzled by the noble Lord. He has asked how it is possible to include a statement when there is nothing to explain what it means. However, as he pointed out himself, it does not matter whether something is set out at the beginning or the end of the Bill. Later we have a clear statement that:
	"The purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom are—".
	Those purposes are then set out in detail. Furthermore, a clear statement is made on the manner of fulfilling those purposes.
	I do not understand why it is so difficult to link the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with what is set out so clearly later in the Bill. Surely it would be perfectly possible for the noble Lord to do that if he was so minded.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had been patient for a moment longer, I was going to say what the Bill does.
	Part 2 of the Bill is not the appropriate place since it covers network services and the radio spectrum. However, Part 3 covers radio and television services. We must look in some detail at what is set out in Clause 260 and the subsequent clauses. If any accusation has been made—and by implication that was the case—that somehow the Government are being soft on the principles of public service broadcasting, then this should answer it.
	Clause 262 requires public service broadcasters to produce "statements of programme policy". They must do so at the outset and then at regular intervals. It may be said that a statement of policy may or may not be worth the paper it is written on. However, Clause 260 requires Ofcom to report on the fulfilment of the public service remit. Subsection (6) in particular sets out in great detail the requirements of public service broadcasting. Those requirements are detailed in such a way that, taken together with the powers conferred to enforce the principles, they provide exactly the protections for public service broadcasting which all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate are seeking. The subsection provides specifically that Ofcom should have backstop powers to enforce these principles for all broadcasters except the BBC, and that the Secretary of State shall have powers under the agreement with the BBC to enforce those principles for the BBC itself.
	So not only do all public sector broadcasters have to undertake a form of contract with the nation about public service broadcasting, but Ofcom has the responsibility and the power to see that that is enforced. That is what I call a commitment to public service broadcasting. Simply to insert it as a part of the general duties of Ofcom does not seem to add anything of any significance whatever.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which seek to amend Ofcom's duty to imply that each individual television and radio service must be of high quality. Of course we want to see consistently high quality programming made available throughout the United Kingdom by all broadcasting providers. However, we provide for that, first, through the provision of high quality public service broadcasting—I have talked about that—and, secondly, we have provided for that through the licensing of other broadcasters, taking into account the overall responsibilities set out in Clause 3, including those relating to quality and diversity. But where there is no constraint on spectrum—I say this to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who appears to think that we should award restrictive licences to all broadcasters; that is not the case where there is no constraint on spectrum—we would be wrong to set a threshold of high quality for all new entrants.
	For example, I cite community radio and television, as well as radio and television services for particular minorities. There is a sense of trade-off between high quality and diversity; that is, services that appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. If we are considering community and ethnic minority radio and television services, I do not think that we would wish to impose the kinds of standards of quality intended by these amendments. Surely the right approach is to seek high quality across broadcasting services taken as a whole rather than to impose it on every single provider.
	For those reasons, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Lord McNally: I had a lump in my throat, as I am sure did most of the rest of the Committee, when I listened to the Minister's opening declaration. But I should tell him that the three specific criticisms to which he alluded were all made by me. I stand by them.
	I wish to say only this. So far we have considered seven amendments, all seven of which have been rejected. If Peter Snow were commentating on election night, he would already be predicting a landslide. When are we going to see flexibility?

Viscount Astor: Before the Minister responds—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to respond first to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. What the noble Lord should recognise—I know that my noble friend Lord Puttnam would do so—is that this Bill is profoundly different as a result of the changes made to it by the joint scrutiny committee. We have made huge changes—I shall not say "concessions"; they would be concessions only if we did not agree with them—in response to informed criticism. We have done so after proper debate and discussion and we will continue to do so.
	However, as is the case with these amendments, if we think that it would not serve any valuable purpose to include them in the Bill, then we will resist them.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: At a later stage of the Bill, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will reconsider his judgment on the two amendments tabled in my name. I should remind him that their effect would not be to require high quality from all services. It would simply ensure that one of the obligations of Ofcom would be to secure a wide range of television and radio services that are of high quality. If Ofcom is not in place to do that, why bother with it? If it is to aim at mediocrity, then we can do without it.

Viscount Astor: I have listened with care to the debate and I wish to put one question to the Minister. I think it is important that the general duties of Ofcom should be set out clearly in Clause 3(1), as is the case with regard to the interests of consumers and the community. However, the details of those interests are spelt out only later in the legislation. Therefore I fail to understand the Minister's argument why it is not possible to include a phrase such as the "principles of public service broadcasting" which are then detailed later in the Bill.
	The duties of Ofcom are not spelt out in Clause 3(1), but the basic principles are. If you can have one, then I do not see why it is not possible to have the other.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 3(1) sets out the general duties across the range of responsibilities of Ofcom, whether it be broadcast or other telecommunications services. Public service broadcasting is enormously important, but it is a specific element of that and thus is best covered in the part of the Bill dealing with radio and television services.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am immensely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this penetrating and stirring mini-debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, who has come from his sickbed to make his contribution. That is greatly appreciated. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, at least I can give him this 1924 quotation from Lord Reith, in which he described the responsibility of public service broadcasting as the need to,
	"carry into the greatest possible number of homes everything that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement".
	The reason I did not use the quotation earlier was that it lacks "entertainment" as an important element of what today would be part of anyone's definition of public service broadcasting.
	I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for pinning the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to his Bench where he should be pinned on his principal objection to the amendment; namely, that it lacks definition. If the Minister could tell me how much less defined it is than the phrase contained in the Bill—
	"to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters"—
	I would be deeply obliged. But, of course, he cannot do so. The reason he cannot do so—and the reason I did not—is that this is a general duty clause.
	My second point is that Clause 260 is not part of the general duty clause on the obligations of Ofcom. The point made by every single speaker bar none is that public service broadcasting standards must be at the flag, at the head, at the heart of the Bill. However admirable Clause 260 may be on its own, it is not part of the general duties. The mood of the Committee, as I apprehend it, is that public service broadcasting standards should be a general requirement to which the Director General of Ofcom should have regard.
	Having gone that far, this is not the moment to vote on these issues. I am sure that a great deal of talking will take place before Report, when the Government can be assured that we will be back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) In conducting their duties under subsection (1), OFCOM shall have a primary responsibility to ensure that their actions are, at all times, governed by the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed."

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 18 and 19. The amendments focus on the general duties of Ofcom and the need, in our view, to have on the face of the Bill an increased emphasis on the principles of better regulation.
	In setting out the key principles of the Bill, the Government have expressed their aim to create the most dynamic and competitive communications industry in the world. To that end, they have highlighted the need for deregulation to promote competitiveness and investment, together with self-regulation where appropriate. We support the Government in these aims.
	However, we want to be sure that in practice Ofcom will, as it becomes established, adhere to the principles of better regulation; that the regulatory activities of Ofcom will be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted. To that end, it should be a primary duty on the face of the Bill and not only something to which Ofcom should have regard when it appears to be relevant in the circumstances.
	The Bill grants extensive powers to Ofcom as a regulator to intervene right across the economy. In that case it is essential that it should not only have regard to, but adhere to at all times the principles of better regulation that are consistently championed by the Government's Better Regulation Task Force.
	The chairman of the task force, David Arculus, when appointed last year, was reported in the Financial Times as having warned that civil servants are drowning small businesses in a wave of regulation because they have little understanding of business. He went on to say that,
	"Some of the problem lies with independent regulators who are keen to make the most of the new powers they have been given".
	While we are confident that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, will not fall into this trap, we nevertheless wish to protect the future and thereby make adherence to better regulation principles a primary duty for Ofcom. I can assure the Committee that we are supported in large part across the broadcasting and telecommunications industries in this aim.
	We are disappointed therefore that the Government have seen fit to place a less than wholehearted commitment to the principles on the face of the Bill. I recognise that, like the remainder of Clause 3, these principles are to be disapplied when Ofcom carries out its concurrent competition powers. I have no dispute with that. Similarly, there may be instances where it is not appropriate for Ofcom to behave in accordance with all the better regulation principles but with only some of them. Someone has suggested, for example, that Ofcom cannot be too transparent in advance when it is carrying out a raid on a pirate broadcaster. That kind of situation must of course be respected.
	We have tabled two alternative amendments for the Government's consideration, both of which would achieve this aim. The first would simply delete the provisions in Clause 3(3) and amend Clause 3(1) to ensure that in conducting its duties under the subsection Ofcom has a primary responsibility to ensure that its actions are at all times governed by the principles.
	The second amendment would amend Clause 3(2) to provide Ofcom with a duty in carrying out its functions and in performing its duties under Clause 3(1) to act impartially and transparently and to comply with the other principles of good regulation.
	The issue was raised briefly in another place. Amendments seeking this increased emphasis were rejected by the Government, even though they failed to provide much reasoning for doing so. It was an insubstantial and unsatisfactory debate. The Government's refusal to adopt these amendments is even more difficult to understand given the importance that they appeared to attach to the principles of better regulation during the consideration of the Bill in another place. The Committee stage debates recorded in Hansard illustrate how often the principles were prayed in aid by the Government as a reason for rejecting amendments that went to the heart of many of the most important debates.
	I ask the Government to think again on this issue. In their exposition of the Bill in Committee they have shown how important the principles will be in underpinning and informing Ofcom in the way that it goes about its work. This sits very uncomfortably with the less than wholehearted commitment to the principles currently given in Clause 3. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: In its report, Champions of Better Regulation, the Better Regulation Task Force claims to have the support of the Prime Minister and that that is one of the great reasons for its success. It states that several themes underpin its work and that the most important consideration of whether it is successful is to look at the themes, to judge their success over the next few years and to see whether they have been accepted and applied by policy makers and regulators. This is a very good example of how we can apply them as policy makers by incorporating them higher in the clause than the position they currently occupy.
	The Minister has already explained that Clause 3 divides conveniently into three units. Clause 3(1) refers to general principles; Clause 3(2) refers to detailed objectives; and Clause 3(3) refers to matters to which the regulator must have regard. Of the two alternatives offered by the amendments, the one I prefer is to incorporate the principles of better regulation into Clause 3(1). That subsection is concerned with principles and therefore, as the noble Baroness said, if we are to divide the general duties of Ofcom into these three hierarchies, the principles of better regulation belong in Clause 3(1) and not down at the bottom in Clause 3(3) as matters to which the regulator must only have regard.
	We acknowledge that the issue of the principles of better regulation is mentioned in the Bill. But we believe, as does the noble Baroness, that it should be up in Clause 3(1), which deals with general principles. Alternatively, Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 offer the option of incorporating it at the beginning of Clause 3(2), where it would be at least in the detailed objectives.
	I hope that the Minister will have regard to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the Government being flexible and that she will consider the various options put forward by noble Lords. We have suggested two different ways of achieving the Better Regulation Task Force principles, either one of which can be discussed with Ministers during the course of the next few weeks before Report. It is important at this stage that the Minister and her colleagues should accept that the better regulation principles should come higher up in the objectives set out in the Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful that both noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments have acknowledged that none of us is against the principles of better regulation. The issue here is where in Clause 3 is the right place to put it? We have put it in subsection (3), and it is proposed that it is put in subsection (1). The reason that it is not in subsection (1) is very simple.
	The general principles set out in subsection (1) apply across the range of Ofcom's functions. They are a furthering of the interests of consumers in relevant markets—and that is all telecommunications markets—and a furthering of the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters. That again is across the whole range of Ofcom's functions. Regulation is only one part of Ofcom's functions. There are many other functions, as set out in subsections (2) and (3). In upholding the principles of regulation, when we are concerned with only one part of the functions of Ofcom, it is right that it should be set alongside the other functions such as the promotion of competition in relevant markets, the desirability of facilitating self-regulation or encouraging investment in innovation. None of those is a regulatory activity. It is right that regulatory activities should be alongside those others, as referring to only part of the range of Ofcom functions.
	Let me give an assurance that the words "have regard to" do not mean that Ofcom can simply ignore it. If there were any question of Ofcom going against regulatory principles there would rapidly be legal challenge to it. If that were found to be the case I am sure that such a legal challenge would be upheld. We are not in disagreement on principle. It is simply a matter of the way in which the Bill is structured and where it is right to refer to a principle which refers to only part of Ofcom's activities.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. The words that I have just written down are "lack of confidence". The difficulty that we have relates to the previous amendments in relation to upholding the principles of public broadcasting as a primary duty, and there is a similar argument here. There is a lack of confidence. It probably rests as much as anything with the wording in Clause 3(3), to which the Minister referred:
	"In performing their duties under subsection (1), Ofcom must have regard, in particular, to such of the following as appear to them to be relevant in the circumstances".
	There is a lack of confidence in the marketplace that Ofcom could use that wording to exit itself in a sense from the need to adhere to the principles of better regulation. There is a real concern that if we do not ensure that at all times the general principle of better regulation is adhered to, the regulator will, as I have already expressed and others have said beyond your Lordships' House, take every opportunity to do as the—

Lord Puttnam: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness on the issue of a lack of confidence. When taking evidence in the Select Committee, it became very apparent to us that for the most part regulators had tended to act too little and too late. That was principally because they found themselves to be under-resourced and unable to grasp market realities as they emerged particularly into a fast-moving marketplace. I think that one of the confusions and one of the problems is the different perspective from the point of view of the dominant provider and the market entrant. The market entrant tends to feel that the regulator acts far too late. The dominant provider tends to feel that the regulator is interfering. Squaring that circle is not easy, but I have total sympathy with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for his intervention. There is no question that there is a concern beyond your Lordships' House in the marketplace, as I have already said, because there is perhaps an opportunity for regulators—using the words in subsection (3)—to act too little and too late. That is something that could and should be corrected in the Bill. That is what we are seeking to do. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for that assistance. We are not intending to press the amendment today, but we believe, as was stressed briefly in committee in another place, that the importance that the Government have always attached to these principles should be reflected in the Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may try to be helpful. I am hearing concern about the preamble to subsection (3). I am hearing concern about whether "have regard to" is strong enough, and whether the flexibility left to Ofcom is strong enough. I suspect that that applies not only to regulatory principles, but to many other issues. I suspect that it relates to the issue of the distinction between the items in subsection (2), which are matters that Ofcom can control, and matters in subsection (3), which on the whole it can only influence. Between Committee and Report stage perhaps we can talk about the wording in the preamble to subsection (3) and make sure that we agree that it is as strong as we intend?

Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion. I think it would be extraordinarily helpful if we could have a discussion between Committee and Report stage about the wording of the introduction to subsection (3), because there is no doubt that we have been lobbied at enormous length right across the industry on this issue. We believe that if we can get this right now it would make a great deal of difference. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (d).

Baroness Buscombe: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 9, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 313.
	During the Bill's Report stage in another place, the Government brought forward amendments which substantially revised Clause 3. One of those amendments introduced a completely new duty for Ofcom—now subsection 3(2)(d)—to secure,
	"the maintenance of a plurality of providers of different television and radio services".
	During the Report stage debate, my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench pressed the Government to explain their reasons for introducing this new duty, and how they intended it to be used by Ofcom in carrying out its functions.
	In particular, concerns were expressed that the new duty could have a considerable impact on the way in which Ofcom deals with proposed mergers and acquisitions within the sector in the future—that Ofcom could intervene in any merger between any individual TV and radio providers simply on the basis that this reduced plurality. Very specific questions were put to the Minister at the time. Would, for example Ofcom be able to prevent the creation of a single ITV, even if the Office of Fair Trading were content for that to happen under general competition law? Would it be able to prevent mergers between other existing providers such as Disney, Viacom or BSkyB, simply on the basis that this reduced plurality? What if a merger were to reduce plurality—that is the number of different providers of television and radio services—but improve the quantity, quality or range of programme content? Might not the inclusion of this new duty encourage Ofcom to value plurality for its own sake, and to temper the priority that it would have previously given to,
	"the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of television and radio services which (taken as a whole) are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests"?
	The answer provided by the Government in response to those questions was unsatisfactory. I will, if I may, read it out to your Lordships now. The Minister said:
	"The media ownership rules in the Bill will ensure that there are a number of different providers of TV and radio services. The amendment"—
	introducing the duty to maintain plurality—
	"will mean that Ofcom will take plurality as well as diversity into account in carrying out its functions, including reviewing the media ownership rules. That is the key significance of the amendment: it ensures that OFCOM will be able to consider plurality in reviewing the rules".
	I regret that the Government have until now shed little light on the scope and purpose of the new duty. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to clarify matters for us further today. Given that the key significance of the new duty is its role in the review of media ownership rules, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why it has not been placed in the relevant clause which relates to this review; that is, Clause 384.
	The fact that the duty has instead been placed in Clause 3 suggests that Ofcom would be required to ensure that it is fulfilled in exercising all of its functions—a much wider purpose—and not just specific functions that relate to plurality, such as the media ownership review. Indeed, the Minister appeared to confirm this by indicating that the purpose of the duty includes, and is therefore not limited to, the review of media ownership rules. Yet the Government have not provided any explanation of what other purposes they intend for the new duty, beyond its role in the review of media ownership rules.
	As I have already reminded the Committee, there is significant concern that the new duty could afford Ofcom considerable new powers to intervene in media acquisitions and mergers on the basis of plurality alone. For example, under Clauses 344 and 346, Ofcom would have to be notified of a change in control of Channel 3 or Channel 5 licensees respectively and would have to satisfy itself that the criteria in those clauses were satisfied.
	However, with the addition of the plurality general duty in Clause 3(2)(d), Ofcom would now also have to ensure that plurality was maintained. Accordingly, if Ofcom concluded that plurality would not be maintained consequent upon a change in ownership of Channel 3 or Channel 5, it might seek to prohibit the acquisition under its general duties even though all other criteria—regarding, for example, the amount, range and quality of original productions, news, current affairs and regional programmes, and competition considerations—had been met.
	It is not clear to me how one could claim that plurality had been "maintained" in any merger of the ITV licensees or in the acquisition of Channel 5 by any existing television provider, since it would, de facto, represent a reduction in the number of existing providers, irrespective of the benefits a merger might bring.
	It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could explain how real these concerns are and how we can be assured that there is no problem. Perhaps that could be done by reference to the examples already provided. If the real purpose of the duty is to assist the review of media ownership rules, it would in our view seem sensible for the duty to appear in the relevant clause; that is, Clause 384. That approach is suggested by my amendment.
	If there is a wider purpose to the duty which prevents this, the Government should be clear about what this is and how it will impact on the sector. I beg to move.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I tabled Amendment No. 9 during the Recess, unaware that the noble Baroness had also tabled an amendment to the same effect. I hope she will forgive me if I confine my remarks in support only to Amendment No. 9. I will study her remarks on other amendments and it may be that I shall support some of them.
	When I was checking that my amendment was correct, counting the lines and so forth, I mistakenly picked up my original copy of the Communications Bill as it was published in November 2002. I searched in vain for the provision—it is not there. It is not even in subsection (1), which is a subordinate consideration. It suddenly appeared when the Bill left the House of Commons.
	Had it been a reaction to the recommendations of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, it would have appeared in the November version. It did not. I believe that far too much status has been given to plurality. I do not want to sound like a monopolist—you cannot be a media monopolist nowadays, however benevolent you might be—but I simply ask: in whose interest is plurality of ownership? If it is given equal status, as this does, to the preceding provision seeking a wide range of programming, what happens if enforcing plurality diminishes the range of programming, as I believe it inexorably would? As I mentioned at Second Reading, if one owner has two services, it is within his interest to make them different. Two competitive owners are likely to compete for the most lucrative audience and the wide range of programming will be reduced.
	Furthermore, the same owner can amortise the inevitable overheads of any business over two services, leaving more to go into programming rather than accounts, administration and sales. In addition, competition will lead to more funds being diverted from programming into advertising and marketing against the competition without improving the quality. I therefore ask: in whose interest is plurality? It certainly is not the interest of the listener.
	Arguably, the advertising industry might say, "We want plurality because we can play one against the other". In fact, no media owner enjoys monopoly of a particular market. If people do not like local radio, they can go to television which subdivides their signal so that, as in my case, STV can offer Glasgow or Edinburgh, and they are increasingly subdivided even further. Even advertisers are sufficiently catered for.
	Furthermore, how many of your Lordships live in areas in which there are two local newspapers? There are few indeed—if any. The reason is that they are serving markets so small that there is no room for two. Yet, if we are to make achieving plurality a major objective of Ofcom, it cannot ignore that. It may refuse mergers that would otherwise be sensible and pass other tests.
	Diversity of content and a wide range of content is important for the listener; plurality of ownership is not. This paragraph should go. It was not in the original Bill. I do not know its history of introduction. It cannot be traced to the acceptance of a Puttnam recommendation, otherwise it would have appeared in November. I hope that the paragraph is deleted.

Lord Borrie: I oppose both amendments, despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Gordon, with whom I normally agree on such matters, has spoken in favour of the first of them.
	The combination of the two amendments means an unfortunate downgrading of the objective of plurality from the general part of the Bill—in Clause 3—to Clause 384 which deals with the review by Ofcom of ownership matters. I believe that plurality—multi-ownership—is highly desirable in all forms of media, including the forms especially mentioned here; television and radio services.
	That is not to say that all mergers are undesirable and that small is always beautiful. It is to say that diversity and plurality are powerful objective goods for a democracy because of the range of opinions and views that should be available. A lesser argument, but none the less important in the broader terms of Reithian objectives of public service, is that a broader range of entertainment possibilities of highbrow, lowbrow, middlebrow and so forth, is also desirable. It seems to me that diversity is more likely if there is some degree of multi-ownership. There is a severe risk to diversity if there is no multi-ownership.
	Since the 1960s, the laws relating to newspaper mergers have had in their legislative embodiment objectives enshrined in law which says that both diversity and plurality of ownership are to be taken into account as part of the broad public interest objectives that the competition authorities should ensure. There is nothing new in the combination of diversity and plurality in the realm of legislation. As regards newspaper mergers, in the past 20 to 30 years it has been desirable to have those provisions. Indeed, I take the view that the more they are used now in a broader way to cover radio and television services, the better. I say to my noble friend Lord Gordon that we need not concern ourselves overmuch with the specific objectives of Ofcom on their own because it is not the final decider in these matters if there is a proposed merger between the different owners of radio and television services: that is determined by the Competition Commission. The desirable objectives of diversity and plurality are there as part of the public interest—

Baroness Buscombe: Does the noble Lord agree that there is an enormous difference between taking into account plurality of providers and the fact that this Bill is asking that Ofcom be required to secure the maintenance of plurality of providers?

Lord Borrie: The noble Baroness is right. I was referring specifically to the problem to which she referred, namely, mergers, how Ofcom would deal with them and whether the Government intended that the objective of the maintenance of plurality would be present in those circumstances. I was saying that it would be an objective for Ofcom in those circumstances. But in a merger issue the final decider is not Ofcom, but the Competition Commission. It would weigh up the kinds of points made by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane; namely, whether the desirability of achieving plurality be countered in some way by the view that a merger would be much more effective and allowable even though the number of owners was being reduced because entertainment, information and various other services would be improved. That would be weighed up. No doubt consideration would be given to the number of different owners left in the market place in determining that issue. In other words, each case would be dealt with on its own. But to have the statement in Clause 3(2)(d),
	"the maintenance of a plurality of providers of different television and radio services",
	is highly desirable as an objective for Ofcom. I would not wish it to be downgraded as suggested in the second amendment by tucking it away in the fairly narrow clause as regards Ofcom's review of media ownership matters.

Lord McNally: I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies to this mini debate because I want him to resist this amendment. I promise that I shall not hold it against him in the tally which I am keeping. He can have this one free.
	Whatever its parentage—perhaps the Minister can tell us where it came from—I consider it the kind of good, robust amendment that should be within the general duties of Ofcom. As regards local radio, and a great deal of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, advanced, I even know the jargon. I was told that it is called "hotelling" when two radio stations put out exactly the same programming to capture the same market.
	One of the paradoxes of the new technologies is that when they appeared on the horizon we were promised genuinely local radio, which the communities would own. Indeed, I remember when the cable service started in Greenwich we were told that we would get, God help us, direct broadcasts from Greenwich town hall with the local authority in action! That is a ratings winner if ever there was one. But in radio and television one has to look at the American example. Massive media conglomerates hoover up stations and concentrate power. In the face of that reality a healthy democracy puts plurality as well as diversity as real objectives. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, with all his experience, and I am even more reassured that this is an amendment which, with a clear conscience, the Government can resist.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies, I find myself very much in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said. With apologies to my own Front Bench, I do not quite understand the purpose of knocking out the duty in Clause 3 and in a sense re-inserting it again in Clause 333. If there is a difference here it is that Clause 3, under the heading of "General duties of OFCOM", refers to securing the maintenance of a plurality of providers of different television and radio services. I believe that one must accept that that is stronger language than that which appears in Clause 333, which refers to having regard to the need for the maintenance of plurality.
	In my experience and as one involved in the drafting and preparation from the Home Office, which was then responsible for the Broadcasting Bill 1990—

Baroness Buscombe: I hope that my noble friend will not mind me intervening. The second amendment relates to Clause 384, which deals with the review of media ownership. As the Minister has already said, the fact that it is further down the Bill does not make it any less important.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I meant page 333 (Clause 384). I return to Amendment No 9. One of the great things which we set out to do in the Broadcasting Bill 1990 was to try to provide for the continuance of plurality of different radio and television services. I remember it very well. Our aim was to try to keep going, particularly in ITV, the 13 or 14 different regional television companies. We failed. One looks at the history of the 10 to 12 years since then and realises that the market forces were too great. Obviously, with the proposed merger now between Granada and United News, the amount of plurality in ITV and Channel 3 is likely to be greatly reduced. But that appears to be a very strong reason for putting an objective to Ofcom to do its best to secure plurality.
	I believe that the key words here are,
	"of different television and radio services".
	One is not asking for the maintenance of two or three identical television and radio services. Although it might have been desirable, I believe that the days of that being possible have gone. One is saying that when, later in the Bill, we reach the clauses regarding ownership and changes there as regards Channel 5 or of ITN, it is extremely important that that should be against a background in which one of the aims is to have plurality of different radio and television services so that we do not finish with simply one type of television or radio service, no matter what its name or ownership.
	Therefore, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others have said. I hope that it will remain as a general duty of Ofcom as well as the specific requirement which appears in the later clauses of the Bill.

Lord Bragg: I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said but I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, on certain particular instances. I believe that those should be mentioned on the face of the Bill.
	I used to be chairman of Border Television and I should like to use that as an example. It is a very small station. It is very difficult indeed to see how another station of commensurate clout and resources in that extremely thinly populated area could be set up. If another station were forced into existence in such circumstances, my experience leads me to believe—I could be wrong—that it would probably be an embarrassing and expensive failure that would end up having to be bailed out.
	I have nothing to do with Border Television now but I believe that it would have to challenge a rival company in order to retain its own audience. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said, television companies meet rivals head on, as we see happening most nights with ITV and BBC1 broadcasting popular soaps such as "EastEnders" and "Coronation Street" at the same time. The same thing would happen if Border Television were challenged by a rival company and would lead to a diminution in the quality of broadcasting it offered.
	I believe that there is a positive side to the position in which Border Television finds itself. Having worked at Border Television for many years I believe that for such a company to have a monopoly in the tiny area it covers imposes, curiously, an obligation on it to reach as many of the people in that area and as diverse a section of those people as possible. If the company does not reach those people, it has no audience whatsoever. For example, the company cannot target 16 to 24 year-olds when there are only 16 or 24 of them.
	The viewing figures of Border Television—which could be described as a monopolistic local station—were phenomenal. It achieved viewing figures of between 65 and 75 per cent for a particular evening slot and when it broadcast local documentaries. A problem might arise if we try to change that situation. I do not want such companies to be steamrollered out of existence. How does one impose plurality when the resources cannot sustain that—I am talking about equality of resources not about running a tube from the town hall—and when citizens are showing through the viewing figures that they like what they have? There are often very good solutions to the problems posed by very local broadcasting. I fear that by forcing the measure we are discussing on companies covering very localised areas we shall dilute the strength of local broadcasting.
	We have to keep remembering that broadcasting, particularly television broadcasting, despite all the gadgets, widgets and whatnots, is still a very expensive undertaking. People will not be willing to set up broadcasting companies that cover tiny areas. We could rush ahead and steamroller out much good work that has been done in a quiet way in local districts a long way from London.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for drawing our attention to the fact that the words which we seek to amend were put into the Bill in the Commons. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also alluded to that process.
	I have done my best to identify where they were put in in the Commons. I cannot see any evidence that they were put in in Committee. I have to assume that they were put in on Report, where under Commons procedures new clauses are taken first. When they are under a programme Motion in another place, the only reference to a government amendment that is passed at the end when the guillotine comes down will simply state, "Government amendment so-and-so agreed to". Consequently, unless I am mistaken—I accept that my scrutiny has been rapid—we have no idea why these words were put into the Bill. That puts us at a disadvantage, particularly when our attention is not drawn to the fact that they entered the Bill in that particular manner.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am tempted to rise by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, about Border Television and by what he said about the dangers of seeking to impose plurality. There was an example of that in Wales in the early 1960s when the old ITA, as we then knew it—the Independent Television Authority—proposed and, indeed, promoted the setting up of a company called Wales West and North which overlapped the company in which I served, Television Wales and the West. Wales West and North was a financial failure. Television Wales and the West had to take it over and run the services on its behalf and on behalf of the Independent Television Authority which had set them up. Therefore, there is a danger in seeking to impose plurality. As in that case, when the imposition was largely sponsored by the ITA, so here we would appear to be laying a duty on Ofcom to promote plurality which might end up in the same kind of disaster.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am helped by the fact that I agree with so much of what the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Borrie, in particular have said. But I am afraid that for the sake of the record there are things that I have to say. Having scored two points with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I am sure he will deduct them from two other "Noes".
	The point here is that we are considering plurality not on its own but in conjunction with competition and diversity. Indeed, it is difficult to see how one can have competition in the provision of broadcast services unless one has a degree of plurality. But that apart, diversity is about a range of content and could in principle be supplied by the same provider. To ensure that that is not the only way of achieving diversity and that we get the best degree of diversity, the Bill includes certain limits on ownership. My opposition to the amendments should be supported by everyone who wants to maintain ownership rules and, a fortiori, by those who want to extend them. On that point I look deliberately at the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his friends.
	The Bill enables Ofcom, when it is periodically reviewing the media ownership rules, to take plurality into account. That seems obvious but Ofcom would have to conduct a review to take into account factors such as diversity and competition but not the one thing which the rules are designed to protect. That is why we have given Ofcom this general duty. Previous legislation needed no such duty because the ownership rules were not subject to review by the regulators.
	Let me make it clear that this duty does not bite where Ofcom is considering matters unconnected with the media ownership rules. It does not, in other words, give Ofcom a second bite of the cherry where actions or acquisitions are consistent with the media ownership rules. For example, it would not enable Ofcom to include plurality considerations when considering changes in control of broadcasting licences where the factors which Ofcom is to consider are set out in the relevant clauses of the Bill. Nor would it mean that Ofcom could block a merger which was acceptable to the OFT on the basis that it reduces plurality of providers of television and radio services. If a merger is compliant with the media ownership rules a decision to block it could be taken only on competition grounds, and Ofcom is not a competition authority with respect to mergers.
	I have listened to the points made about including the plurality duty in Clause 384. That would involve downgrading the duty and making it more limited. That is acknowledged. We considered whether the duty would be more appropriate in Clause 3 or in Clause 384. At present we think that this duty will be relevant only to the ownership review. However, this need not always be the case. Schedule 14 allows the Secretary of State to modify the rules and, in principle, it is possible that the rules could be amended in a way that gave Ofcom a degree of discretion. If that were the case, it is important that in exercising that discretion, Ofcom should have regard to plurality along with its other duties. We have no plans to make such changes but the possibility is there. So we believe that Clause 3 is the right place for the plurality duty because plurality potentially has an application wider than just the media ownership review.
	In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, the clause is about maintaining plurality. We are not talking about artificially seeking to create plurality where it does not exist. I hope that the Committee will take seriously the very powerful speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Borrie.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Before the Minister sits down, can he address the issue of the clause's parentage—bearing in mind that it was not in the Bill when it was introduced in another place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Bills change as time goes on. When we introduced the Bill to another place, we considered in the first instance that the ownership rules would guarantee plurality within and between media markets. We thought that would be enough. We amended the Bill to be certain that in any future decisions when Ofcom is not bound to apply certain rules it can maintain plurality. I have no doubt that the noble, Lord Brooke, is right to say that provision was introduced at Report stage. It may be that it was not debated on the Floor in another place.

Lord Bragg: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may seek further clarification. I want to make it quite clear that I am all in favour of plurality, but I gave a particular instance of where it would be very difficult to achieve and would do an existing local station great harm and—the only thing that matters—give viewers a worse service. When such occasions arise—we were given a wonderful supplementary example—may we be reassured that there will be no imposition, no "You must", or rule that what must be national must be local? That could do a disservice to many local communities.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, answered that point. We do not intend to impose plurality where it does not exist. I take very seriously my noble friend's point about Border Television and the risk of seeking to impose plurality. ITV licences were always allocated on a regional basis. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that at one stage there was an attempt to make sub-regions for licence purposes. That did not work then and I cannot imagine that it would work now.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for pressing the point that I was trying to make. I am not seeking to argue against the Minister because there is a meeting of minds between us. The problem with the procedure in another place—I am making a plea for change in the procedure—is that when the guillotine falls any outstanding government amendments are immediately read into the Bill. Unfortunately, Hansard does not record their wording. It therefore requires a great deal of research to discover what is new to a Bill—provisions that were not spoken to but were added silently. It would be easier for those of us trying to follow the progress of a Bill in another place if the wording of such amendments were shown. My reading of the Bill's Report stage in another place is that selections consisted entirely of new clauses. Some amendments were added in groupings. If the next group had not been reached when the guillotine fell, Government amendments were added to the Bill willy nilly, without their wording being published.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot take responsibility for the procedures of another place.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I made it perfectly clear that I was not complaining of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am simply saying that in relations between the two Houses, it would be helpful if another place indicated the text of changes.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That exchange is on the record.

Baroness Buscombe: I made clear in my introductory remarks that one of the reasons for tabling the amendment was to identify the source and purpose of the new clause—which, to be fair, was briefly debated in another place.
	Her Majesty's Opposition are not against plurality. We are trying to understand why the Government chose to add this particular clause at this particular place. We asked whether the clause relates solely to mergers and acquisitions—the review of ownership rules. The Minister replied that one of the reasons for inserting the clause at this point in the Bill is that plurality need not always relate to ownership rules but may potentially have wider applications. The Minister referred to Schedule 14 and I shall certainly consider the clause's wider application.
	This debate has been extremely helpful because it was notable that noble Lords spoke about the desirability and objective of maintaining plurality of providers. We have no argument with maintaining plurality but have difficulty with ensuring that Ofcom shall be required to secure the maintenance of the plurality of providers. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made it clear that in the case of mergers and acquisitions it may be for the Office of Fair Trading to decide whether or not plurality should be maintained—in which case, it will be out of Ofcom's hands.
	We made specific reference to Clause 384, which deals with the review of ownership rule. I repeat, with deference to my noble friend Lord Renton, that the review is an important provision and we place equal importance on that part of the Bill in respect of that specific subject.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for articulating real examples of where maintaining plurality of providers is not viable and does not make common sense.
	I reiterate that we are not agin plurality. Far from it. Perhaps I should return to this issue on Report, by suggesting that paragraph (d) should be inserted instead in Clause 3(3)—depending on the wording that we may devise. That allows Ofcom to take a broader, more flexible and sensible approach in the circumstances. At the moment, there is ambiguity. Speaking to Amendment No. 1 the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said that we should do all that we can to negate ambiguity in respect of Ofcom's general duties. The noble Lord the Minister said that there is no question but that Clause 3(2)(d) would require the maintenance of plurality providers where plurality does not already exist. The fact that we are being extensively lobbied and ourselves question the subsection's parameters tells me that ambiguity exists.
	Given that the Minister is not inclined to accept our amendment, which would bracket the provision with the review of ownership rules, I ask him to think about the positioning of paragraph (d)—perhaps reintroducing it in Clause 3(3). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) so far as practicable and in the manner that best takes account of the need to protect personal data, in order to protect copyrighted content, and to empower parents to protect children from harmful content, that open standards for technical security systems are established and implemented"

Baroness Wilcox: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. The amendments consider security, and the need for Ofcom to be involved in promoting open standards for technological security systems, in order to prevent unauthorised use of personal data and copyright content.
	Technology is developing rapidly, and with it comes the potential to access sensitive information in both the business and personal spheres; hence the importance of security cannot be underestimated. Personal privacy must be protected, as individuals have the right to ensure that data concerning themselves and their families are not made available to others.
	Equally important is the need to prevent children from being exposed to harmful content. Parents struggle to keep their children away from indecent material that is proliferating exponentially, and Ofcom could make their struggle a lot easier if it were to involve itself in security.
	Business also has a lot at stake, most obviously the music industry, but increasingly the film industry is threatened by unlawful downloading from Internet sites. That is flagrant violation of copyright law and will, if serious action is not taken soon, lead to the decline of those thriving British creative industries.
	Computer crime does not stop there, but threatens all business with widespread incidence of hacking into private systems, spreading viruses and the like. I realise that no one will deny that security is an issue of great importance that must be tackled, but why give Ofcom the responsibility?
	We suggest that Ofcom should have the responsibility because the changing nature of technology means that what is currently primarily an Internet-based issue—and hence outside the scope of the Bill—will soon be faced by other communications sectors, as services available online will increasingly be accessible via other means. It is naive to ignore security in the Bill because that is an Internet issue, when it clearly will not remain within those strict confines for long. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: I will be interested to hear what the Minister says. The noble Baroness raises very real issues. I am not convinced that Ofcom is the right body to deal with them, but I might be convinced in the process. She is right on the issues covering access to pornography and other such material with convergence. Let us remember that, when we started, this was the Bill that was going to accommodate convergence. The capacity to access something on mobile phones, personal computers and televisions is converging, and some of the material will be accessible. I am not sure who should handle that.
	The other issue to which the noble Baroness referred—the capacity of the new technologies to be used basically to steal music, films and so on—is one in which I have taken an interest in the past. It is a real problem. I am not sure whether it is yet another problem that we should give to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues, but it is a definite problem and I would be very interested to hear the Minister's response to it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall resist the amendments, but the noble Lord, Lord McNally, cannot count that as a no, because I agree about the importance of the subject and shall suggest that there are better ways to deal with it. Of course it is enormously important to protect copyright content and to allow parents to protect children from harmful content, but there are other ways to do so that are better, for reasons that I shall give.
	We have regulatory controls elsewhere. We have data protection law, copyright law, and criminal law for the protection of children. The amendments would concentrate on mandatory standards. They would not allow for either the technological change to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred or the possibility of self-regulation if it were to be the better route. We could have Ofcom in the position of deciding between different standards, giving advantage to some operators over others. New entrants to the market whose contribution could be very valuable could be excluded because of the mandatory controls.
	There is another dimension, which is the framework of European directives that will govern regulation of communications networks and services. Those are matters for international bodies. Ofcom will not be able to impose purely national standards on the provision of those networks and services.
	There are lots of technical and network-based solutions, such as spam filtering and parental control options, but they are not the answer in themselves. We have to look also to the education of parents and children in the technologies, and how to avoid unsuitable material in the first place. Ofcom's work on media literacy, which is in the Bill, will be important. The Home Secretary has a task force on the protection of children on the Internet, which has advised the Government on public awareness campaigns.
	I must resist the idea that we should require all providers of services to use particular standards or conform to particular requirements. No one solution will meet everyone's needs, and it is important that we be able to reflect both the international situation and changing technological developments. In any case, any standards imposed by Ofcom would have to be consistent with the European regulatory regime for electronic communications, including the new directive on privacy and electronic communications.
	It is known that the Bill introduces four European directives, but it does not introduce that on privacy and electronic communications, which will be introduced by separate regulations under European communities legislation, precisely because we do not think it an appropriate general duty of Ofcom to enforce that. At the moment, we are consulting—we have been since the end of March—on how to implement the directive. We are also considering the results of a consultation on the implementation of the copyright directive.
	We are active on the subject. We think that there are ways to deal with it, but we do not think that the amendment is the right way.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for giving me such a full answer, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for sharing my concerns. As to whether the Bill is the right place to deal with them, I do not know. We have had a lot of pressure on the subject, and I am quite concerned about the ways of implementing the directive from the European Union to which the Minister referred. For the moment, I will withdraw the amendment and take time to consider the right place for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"(g) the availability of adequate means for considering and, where necessary, redressing complaints from the public about alleged lapses from the standards referred to in paragraphs (e) and (f)"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: The amendments are directed to what many of us still regard as a fundamental flaw in the structure of the Bill. That flaw is the threatened removal of a unique, and uniquely important, feature of our present system—the existence of an entirely independent lay body, which has the duty to consider independently certain complaints from members of the public, either about lapses in standards of taste and decency, or about infringements of privacy or unfair treatment by broadcasters. It is also a body which has the independent power to redress such injustices.
	That is what we have now, and we have it not by accident, but as a result of changes deliberately and progressively required by Parliament during the past two decades. Moreover, we have in place today an experienced group of independent people, well served by an experienced staff, who have been doing this job for a number of years and who have won the respect of complainants and broadcasters alike. The amendments are designed to ensure that those qualities and achievements are not lost but are built on and maintained.
	The amendment would specifically strengthen the public service aspects of the Bill by setting out in the Bill the remit and powers—neither of which is spelt out in detail—of the content board. Reference is made only to its exercising "influence" over Ofcom's decisions. That, frankly, is not enough. A more specifically defined remit is needed to reinforce the content board's public service obligations and its powers in dealing with any breaches.
	As your Lordships know, the Bill seeks lighter touch regulation, with far more onus on broadcasters to self- regulate on content and fairness and privacy. It is, however, unrealistic to suppose that every complainant with a serious grievance will be any more content in the future with answers given by the broadcasters than they were in the past. History clearly points to a likely need for a more structured, independent approach to address at least some complaints when broadcasters and citizens refuse to be reconciled. That is what is proposed in the amendment.
	The history of this issue, as I said, is important and speaks for itself. The principle of scrutiny by lay people, independent of broadcasters and regulators, was first enshrined in the Broadcasting Act 1980, which created the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to deal with issues of fairness and privacy. The Broadcasting Act 1990, which created the Independent Television Commission, not only retained the Broadcasting Complaints Commission but added the Broadcasting Standards Council to handle issues of violence, taste and decency.
	It should be stressed that throughout that period broadcasters had their own standards codes. Those codes were required to reflect the statutory commission's own codes. Nevertheless, complaints about taste and decency and fairness and privacy have continued to keep both commissions and the ITC fairly busy.
	My experience—I declare an interest as a previous chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council and then of the commission—is that the wholly lay membership of these bodies, which were recently merged into the Broadcasting Standards Commission, introduced a new and important dimension into the resolution, where practical, of complaints. The independence of the adjudicators provided reassurance to many of those complaining. That reassurance can be attributed, at least in part, to the power of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, like its two predecessors, to order the publicising on air or in print—or, indeed, both—of its critical findings.
	The Bill currently provides for the application of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public and other persons from unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy. Similarly, protection is to be provided from offensive and harmful material. However, in neither case is there any indication of how complaints about those matters will be handled. This is too important an issue to be entrusted to Ofcom if no specific duties or enforcement powers are provided for it in the Bill. The amendment is intended to fill that important gap. I beg to move.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I support this amendment. I, too, was chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which dealt with unfairness and infringements of privacy. Enormous distress was caused among many people whose privacy or fairness had been infringed. This amendment is very like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about public services, although it involves a more minor situation. Enormous distress has been caused to people who suffered in this regard.
	We want a statement of principle like those in written constitutions, but that does not occur. If it does not occur, distress could occur. The body is very amorphous; it deals with competition and commercial matters. We must have in it something that helps individuals. In my four or five years on the commission, I saw people who were enormously distressed by a programme that had caused them trouble. I cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to place in the early part of the Bill a principle that protects individuals.
	The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raises a point of principle, which is related to the individual. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will not say no to this amendment; it is most innocuous and it would care for people. We should care for people. In my four or five years on the commission, I saw people whose lives were absolutely destroyed. There is nothing in the Bill that fulfils the aim of the noble Baroness's amendment. Surely the Minister can say "Hello" to this amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. This approach is an essential part of furthering community interests in communications matters to ensure that there is adequate means for the individual—as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said—and the community to express their voice. It is particularly important for the means available for that to be inclusive and not to limit the range of voices heard because of economic or other factors. It also follows from that that the redress for complaints must be provided free to the public by a regulatory body that should not be heard to say, "If you have a complaint then sue". Equally, the potential confusion over which issues are for the content board and which are for the consumer panel is answered by this simple amendment, which leaves the means of delivering the redress to Ofcom and its content board. I suggest that that is hardly onerous for either.
	The present regulators provide such redress, and it is easily accessible to the public. Indeed, the public clearly feel the need to make use of such an opportunity, as is shown by the Broadcasting Standards Council's own figures, which show an increase in direct complaints to the council of 46 per cent in 2002. The content board will need to win public confidence but it will not do that without a credible and easily used means of accountability for the public, under which it is clear which matters are issues for which body. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

Lord Lipsey: I, too, sympathise very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is trying to do. I want to make a single point. The problem in this context is more cultural than legislative. There was a case in yesterday's newspaper—I shall not go into the details—in which the Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld a complaint against a programme on the grounds that it conducted its dealings with people taking part in the programme under false pretences. The BSC's verdict was that it was guilty. What was the response of the organisation? Did it apologise to the people concerned and say that it would try to ensure that it would never happen again? No. The response was to say that the verdict was disgraceful and that it had done absolutely nothing wrong. I am afraid that that is a problem among broadcasters and in my former profession of journalism. I refer to an unwillingness to admit to error in this regard and a willingness to use total power.
	I contrast that—I see that my noble friend Lord Borrie is in his place—with the situation regarding the Advertising Standards Authority, on which I sit under my noble friend's wise chairmanship. The advertising industry often does not like our judgments but it nearly always accepts them without further protest, redress to law or anything else of that kind. The real success of Ofcom in this regard, whatever legislative powers we give it, will be whether it can bring about a cultural change by which broadcasting organisations are prepared to admit for the first time that they are capable of error.

Viscount Falkland: We on these Benches have just suddenly agreed to follow the views generally of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. We have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. We have seen her distinguished work on the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the way in which it was carried out. Some years ago, she very kindly gave us the opportunity of spending a morning there; we saw the work that was done and how effectively it was done. What gives us some problems in this regard was well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey: this is more a cultural matter—I liked that phrase—rather than anything else. Ofcom will have to deal with some objective problems, as did the Broadcasting Standards Commission whose gravest problems involved intrusion on privacy. Decisions on violence, obscenity and so on are largely subjective. They change with time and fashion as they have done since we have had the benefit of the work of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
	The regulatory body will have great difficulty on that issue. I agree that it is healthy for viewers and listeners to have the opportunity to raise issues where offence may have been given—it may be to a minority—through perceived indecency of language or behaviour or by the offending of a moral sense among some of the community. But it is not easy to make such provision in concrete terms on the face of the Bill.
	Ofcom will have clear machinery to deal with issues such as intrusion on privacy or the deceiving of people into programmes on a pretext that is clearly false. The noble Baroness does not seek today to divide the Committee. However, if she were to tighten the provision, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I might come closer to agreement with her. At present, the wording is a little loose. It is difficult to envisage how it could be incorporated on the face of the Bill.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am slightly worried. I understand the noble Lord's point. Privacy and unfairness cause enormous distress. I agree that the amendment may have to be refined. However, I should be sad if it became lost in the idea of a relative morality that we cannot define. I have had to deal with individuals who have suffered infringement of privacy and unfairness. Lives can be wrecked. In considering the amendment, I hope that the Committee will try to escape from the issue of relative morality. I share the noble Lord's view. One has to define it. In a street of 10 houses, one has 10 different concepts of morality. Unfairness and privacy—those were my concerns—need to be enshrined in the Bill. At present, they are not. I hope that the Government will propose an amendment which enshrines them.

Viscount Falkland: I agree with the noble Lord. If the provision can be tightened to the extent he suggests, we would be happy.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to speak at this stage. However, it is important to clarify matters.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness asked the question. If we are to have a sensible debate, it is better for the Minister to reply and for the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to use her right of reply at the end of the debate. There is no rule—anyone can intervene at any time in Committee—but it makes for a tidier debate.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Pilkington. It is surprising that this important issue is not addressed elsewhere in the Bill.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My noble friend Lord McIntosh does not act in self-interest when he suggests that Ministers should speak because it now falls to me to do so. I regret that the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to encourage either the noble Lord, McIntosh, or the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to say "No" has not been successful. I shall say "No" instead, but he may not regard that as much comfort. However, I hope that I do so while fully understanding the concerns of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I respect the roles they have played in their chairmanship of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. They speak with great expertise.
	The Government do not approach the issue in any way but in a considered manner. We do not have the flexible policy framework that the Liberal Democrat Party adopts on occasions, with last minute consultations on the Front Bench during debate. Our position is established over a period of time.

Baroness Buscombe: I should like to make clear that ours is not a last minute consultation.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I had not brought in the Official Opposition but reserved my remarks solely for the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	I emphasise that the Bill contains the necessary machinery for dealing with the issues rightly identified in debate today. Ofcom will inherit the function currently undertaken by the Broadcasting Standards Commission to consider complaints of unfair treatment or unwarranted infringements of privacy. This function, and the detailed procedures for considering and adjudicating on complaints, is set out in the Broadcasting Act 1996. We believe that these provisions have worked well in encouraging high journalistic standards in the broadcast media and that is why we have preserved them and passed them on to Ofcom.
	They provide a readily accessible route for complainants to pursue their complaint and have the record set straight. They do not provide a right of privacy or a substitute for matters more properly considered by a court of law, such as any claim for damages, but research carried out by the Broadcasting Standards Commission establishes that complainants are more concerned with safeguarding and restoring their reputation than with receiving financial award, and the BSC route provides a good route for addressing their concerns. That framework is enshrined in the Bill.
	As we have provided for an adequate means for considering and providing redress for complaints about the matters, and the duty at Clause 3(2)(f) charges Ofcom with providing adequate protection to the members of the public in relation to the relevant standards, it is entirely superfluous to place a further duty on Ofcom to ensure the availability of that system. The Bill already contains the system.
	The noble Baroness may also be interested to note that observance of the fairness code under the 1996 Act will be a condition of broadcasters' licences. Where Ofcom considers that a breach of the fairness code includes a contravention of the licence, it may take enforcement action against the licence holder in addition to adjudicating on the fairness complaint.
	Amendment No. 51, with Amendment No. 11, appears designed to ensure that the functions of the content board include, to the extent determined by Ofcom, functions in relation to the consideration of complaints about breaches of fairness standards and privacy. Those functions fall within those which Ofcom could give to the content board but we do not believe it right to include them specifically in the legislation. To limit Ofcom's discretion as to how it discharges the responsibilities for which it will be held to account might skew its ability to fulfil them. Ofcom might, for example, feel that the establishment, perhaps in conjunction with the content board, of separate arrangements for handling complaints—for example, through a separate committee of Ofcom—might be a more effective option.
	We do not believe it is right to seek to constrain Ofcom's flexibility in that way given that the powers are enshrined in the Bill and given the duties upon Ofcom derivative from the 1996 Act which is the basis on which the substantial work of the Broadcasting Standards Commission was done.
	More generally, on the question of taste, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, introduced an important point, as did my noble friend Lord Lipsey. These are more difficult areas to identify with some precision in legislation. We all recognise that standards of taste and decency change over time. There needs to be a framework within which these issues are considered. I think I have established that in the—

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I accept what the Minister says. However, I wonder whether he realises the enormous distress caused. I shall give an example. A programme was produced by Carlton showing a murder in Northern Ireland. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission found against that programme. It was a caricature of the truth. What happened? The programme was sold to Australia. One can acquiesce and say that they can go to law, but one has to be very rich to go to law against commercial organisations of the strength of a television company. I fear that the Government are not protecting people who suffer infringement of privacy or unfairness. I hope that they will do so in the Bill. Believe me, gross abuses have occurred. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this issue.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have some sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord. I served for a time on the Select Committee in another place that considered such abuses of the media, particularly in journalism. I am aware that cases arise which cause the greatest concern to us all. Restitution is not always made in full, although I think it is recognised that the requirements placed on broadcasting in the framework proposed in the Bill and in that which has obtained in the past are much more stringent than anything to do with the written media.
	However, I emphasise that I can imagine the distress caused in the case identified by the noble Lord. The question of whether rights were sold to a company in a foreign country and whether the programme was broadcast there would be very much a matter for the law of that country, not our own in those terms. I recognise and share the concern raised. I seek to reassure the noble Lord that Ofcom inherits the powers and obligations in the Broadcasting Act; they are in the Bill. I hope that on that basis the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Of course, the Bill could introduce sanctions. Fines could be imposed. The Government have fought shy because the old legislation does not give that power. I do not believe the Government have given thought to this matter. A fine could be imposed if the programme was broadcast in Australia. English law is powerful.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on what I certainly regard as a very important issue—both those who have supported me and those who have their doubts. I am particularly glad to have had reassurance from the Minister that Clause 2 does exactly what he says it does; it carries through the same powers to Ofcom and, it is hoped that that will be able to be passed on to the content board or possibly, as he suggested, sub-committees. That would again make the case very strongly, not just about fairness and privacy where grave wrongs have been done in the past, with much greater damage than being taken through a court of law. It is so important that it is spelt out in Clause 3(2)(f)(i) and (ii). I do not think that fairness and privacy was there in the original draft but it is there now. It is good to know that that will be dealt with.
	I hope I can assume from what the Minister said that indeed the Government will expect Ofcom, the content board or a subsidiary to deal with complaints from the public. It will be impossible to have no one ultimately responsible. I regard that as important also for taste and decency. It is all very well the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referring to a change of culture. Why have we not seen that over the past 20 years with broadcasters being more responsive to the attitudes of the public? Of course attitudes to taste and decency change over time. That is what was so important about a body such as the Broadcasting Standards Commission, because its approach and its membership changed over time, too. Quite deliberately today I did not refer to that which I mentioned on Second Reading and previously. I still do not regard Ofcom or the content board as sufficiently independent to make such judgments, because they issue licences. On that side, I am particularly glad to know that there will be other methods by which these matters can be dealt with.

Lord Alli: Perhaps the noble Baroness would recognise two matters as regards the broadcasters' position on taste and decency. Long gone are the days when one could test a programme before it was broadcast. Therefore, one of the problems is that condemnation comes only post-broadcast. It is difficult because one is always adjudicating. One does not deliberately put something out that one believes will offend people, but the nature of the system is that it comes through.
	As a general point, it is difficult for broadcasters to consider the issue seriously and take on board the regulations imposed on them when the print media has virtually no regulation. There are dual standards. As regards privacy, it is difficult when we are putting into the Bill hoops for broadcasters to go through, yet no such hoops exist for the printed media. That dilemma is at the heart of the attitude referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. It is an attitude of unfairness to one broadcast medium as against another.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I shall reply briefly to the noble Lord. I accept the point he makes, other than that I believe it is more damaging for something to be shown on television and listened to on radio than to appear in the print media. We all know why there is this longstanding element of difference between the print and the broadcast media.

Lord Bragg: It is slightly naive of my noble friend Lord Alli to say that broadcasters do not put out things that they intend to offend against taste and decency. If he trots along the networks and the "this, that and the others" late on any night he will see things that cannot but be there to offend against taste and decency—certainly mine, thank you very much.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I may return to it at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) the application, in the case of electronic communications network services, of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public and all other persons from unwarranted infringements of privacy resulting from activities carried on for the purposes of such services"

The Earl of Northesk: Following in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and those of my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Brooke, I, too, express my apologies for the fact that I was unable to participate in the Second Reading debate. However, I note that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put it, it was an occasion when the "fluffies" crowded out the "techies". I do not consider myself to be a particular expert in the field—if you will, a "techie"—but it is important that some of the technological aspects that underlie the Bill are given a wider airing than they have had so far. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I take a little longer than would normally be appropriate to explain the context of the few amendments tabled in my name.
	Outwardly, the Bill addresses issues of convergence in the media and broadcasting sector and, as I think we all agree, in an economic sense it makes a good fist of this. There may be more or less tidying up to be dealt with around some of the headline issues—indeed, earlier debates today made that point—but, in essence, both the Government and the Bill team are to be congratulated on having produced a pretty solid piece of drafting.
	The Joint Committee, under the astute and invigorating chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, also deserves our plaudits. So I find it disappointing that, to my perception, the Bill is so tentative on some aspects of technological convergence.
	However, I recognise the problems involved. I am only too willing to endorse wholeheartedly the Government's oft-repeated mantra that—here I quote directly the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:
	"We do not intend to regulate the internet".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; col. 784.]
	That is very welcome. While I am acutely aware—noble Lords may be tiring of me beating this particular drum—that there are problems in need of redress as far as concerns IT, I willingly accept that this Bill is not the right mechanism to deal with most of them.
	The Minister will no doubt also argue that the Bill has been drafted with "future-proofing" very much in mind. Quite rightly, there is no wish to pre-empt future technological advance by inadvertently favouring a current development over any other on the face of the Bill. But I have a huge problem with the way in which Ministers—possibly the same approach will be adopted in respect of all my amendments today—seek to hide behind the supposed panacea of Clause 3(3)(e) which deals with the,
	"desirability of encouraging investment and innovation in relevant markets".
	That is not good enough. Nor can I help feeling that, desirable as the Government's aspirations are in their own right, the quest for technological neutrality has resulted in too much timidity, a few blind spots, about the way in which so many of the technological boundaries that once existed within the broadcasting sector are becoming ever more blurred.
	Against that background, I turn to the substance of the amendment. As I understand it, the Government are transferring the existing privacy regime—for want of a better way of putting it—from the previous regulators to Ofcom. To that extent, the current drafting of the Bill is, as it were, a direct inheritance. Indeed, the Minister has already said as much when responding to previous amendments. To my mind, the intended purpose is specific; that is, to provide adequate protection from what we could euphemistically call journalistic or media enthusiasm. I have no complaint about that: it is welcome. But there is a big problem here.
	Technological convergence has meant that the activities of the media are increasingly not confined to the traditional mechanisms of delivery, be they newsprint, television screens or radio. Media interests have been quick to realise and grasp the commercial potential of the new technology, especially the web. The BBC, all the major television companies and major newspapers now have extensive, even lucrative, presences on the Internet. We are all learning new ways of both receiving and imparting information. But I am uncertain that the web and/or Internet-based activities of media enterprises are bound by any constraint on the face of the Bill. In the words of my noble friend Lord Pilkington, the right to privacy does not seem to be properly "sanctified".
	In so far as that interpretation is correct, there is potentially a huge lacuna on the face of the Bill. It is odd that one arm of the media enterprise—that involved in broadcasting by television or radio—should be regulated by the terms of Clause 3(2)(b), while another—its web and/or Internet-based activity—should not. I would go further. There is a legitimate case for arguing that web-based intrusion of privacy represents a more acute risk than that posed by traditional broadcast methods. I acknowledge that this may not be strictly relevant to the amendment as drafted, but we need consider only the modern curse of "spam". Then there is the growing menace of identity theft.
	I should emphasise that it is not my intention with the amendment to impose regulation on the Internet. As I have already said, I stand four square behind the Government's position on this issue. Rather it is a case of what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Surely it has to be the Government's intention that in circumstances where media enterprises "broadcast" material via a new technology, those activities should be subject to the terms of the Bill, as well as those already covered. If not, there is next to nothing gained in having the protection afforded by Clause 3(2)(b), because it can be ridden roughshod over by a savvy enterprise limiting its exposure to those forms of delivery where the regulation does not bite.
	There is one other side-bar to the amendment that I should mention. Noble Lords will have noted that it is drafted to be consistent with the existing wording on the face of the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will also have deduced that this is partly a, no doubt vain, hope that, by so doing, more sympathy for it will be inspired in the minds of those on the Government Benches than might otherwise have been the case. But it also serves another purpose: 3G—third-generation—mobile phones are not yet with us, but 2½G mobile phones are here. Without getting too bogged down in the technicalities, this provides users, among other things, with the facility of transferring images to each other. I believe I am right in saying that a range of establishments have felt it necessary to ban 2½G phones from their premises. These vary from, for example, fitness clubs, because embarrassing and compromising pictures were being taken of individuals and then distributed via the network, to cinemas because of the potential for breach of copyright.
	It is fair to say that it is simple common sense for such establishments to impose bans; in other words, there is no absolute necessity for the narrow issue, of itself, to be subject to statutory regulation. But it explains why the amendment uses the wording preferred by the Government, especially the phrase "electronic communications network services". It also demonstrates the points that I have already sought to make—namely, that the potential risks to individual privacy and its capacity to be infringed is that much more acute in respect of the new technology.
	The Minister may seek to argue that the purposes of the amendment are already substantially dealt with elsewhere under the umbrella of other legislation. This could well be so, but if there is a single theme that runs through all the amendments tabled in my name, it is that the economic and commercial health of the new technology is dependent upon the degree of trust and confidence that consumers have in it. It has been my experience that among noble Lords, to a greater or lesser extent, there is a wholly natural antipathy towards, even fear of, ICT. It would be inappropriate to define it as "Luddite", but it is a diffidence that has an echo among the wider public. That being so, there are strong arguments in favour of doing what we can to buttress confidence in the technology. Ensuring that consumers have adequate protection against unwarranted infringements of privacy is one of the ways in which this can be done. In this sense, it is my view that it is wholly appropriate that Ofcom's remit should extend in the way suggested by the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I rise briefly on the issue of broadband simply to suggest that, again, we are making a god of competition. I give way to the noble Lord. I apologise.

Lord Puttnam: I have a few comments to make about the noble Earl's amendment. I am most concerned that he should not be allowed to be, or feel, a lone voice. The issues he has raised are of enormous importance. I am sure that other members of the Joint Committee will confirm that when we were confronted with the colossal task that we undertook a year ago we experienced some relief when we were told that we did not have to address such issues. Their inclusion in our work would have greatly increased the burden placed upon us. But these issues must be addressed, though this may not be the Bill within which to address them, nor the moment to do so.
	To pretend that because such issues are complex, or in some respects defy our ability to pin them down, is no reason at all to imagine that we shall not have to grapple with them sooner or later and bring them under some form of—here is the dreaded word—intelligent "regulation". It may well be a dotcom, that is a decision for the Government. The noble Earl has done us all a favour by moving this amendment. I hope that the Committee will take his arguments most seriously.

Lord Avebury: I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, on introducing this subject and I agree that it is extremely important. If we are seeking to regulate the content of newspapers, but we are not seeking to regulate those newspapers as they appear on the Web, then there is a philosophical inconsistency in our approach to the legislation. Perhaps we will be told by Ministers that what is published on the Web is dealt with in other ways.
	However, that seems incongruous. The noble Earl pointed out that much of what is published on the Web is identical to that which appears in other media. He cited the example of the BBC and other television companies which relay identical material on the Web. It is possible to listen to Radio 4 if you so wish, or you can hear the news in real time. Alternatively, you can use a function which I find extremely convenient, that of time-lapse recording. It is then possible to listen to BBC broadcasts or watch transmissions later on.
	However, it goes much further than that. It is possible to read almost any respectable newspaper, the text of which is placed on the Web simultaneously with its publication in hard copy. That applies to newspapers all over the world. I do not know whether noble Lords are familiar with a website which offers access to any newspaper published in any country. The website is called www.thepaperboy.com. You are presented with a menu of countries. A click on Pakistan allows you to read this morning's issue of Dawn. Alternatively, the Australian section allows you to read the Brisbane Courier, or in the Thailand section you can see the Bangkok Post.
	We live in a global era as regards the publication of newspapers on the Web. The regulations applying to different newspapers in different countries may seem almost irrelevant when it is possible to access all this material in an identical text format via the Internet. Issues of privacy therefore have to be considered in a much wider context than that encompassed by this Bill. I suggest that they must be dealt with on a global basis because the Internet is a global medium. If we ever seek to introduce regulations that apply to the publication of hard copy when it is relayed via the medium of the Internet, then that must be done by means of international agreement rather than through legislation in any one country.
	Perhaps the Minister will try to explain how we should deal philosophically with the inconsistency of attempting on the one hand to regulate the print medium, saying that certain things can or cannot be published in that format, while backing off from any attempt to regulate the content of the Internet—a point made by the noble Earl at the start of his remarks. Given that the material may be identical, that would be a hard position to sustain.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be extremely brief. I, too, wish to support my noble friend Lord Northesk. From the body language of the Government Front Bench, I detected a sense that we might be drifting away from the text of the amendment. Given that my noble friend has moved the first of a series of electronic and technological amendments, I shall do once what, in a different mode, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, did when he declared his interests and said that he would not do so again at any stage. I will not repeat the speech I am about to make on any of my noble friend's subsequent amendments.
	I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I can well recall occasions when in debate between the Department of Trade and Industry and the then Department for National Heritage, some attempts were made to secure rapid decisions favourable to one department by using the complexity of the issue as a way of blinding the other department. I do say that unkindly; it was perfectly proper and understandable. But it means that we must bear the responsibility to ensure that all the technological and electronic flap doors are opened in order to be certain that we are legislating sensibly. We should not pass them by because they are too difficult.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Northesk. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that we should be grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. It is a complex subject, one from which perhaps some of us would wish to shrink away, and I must be absolutely straightforward and say that I defer to the expertise of my noble friend. I am grateful to him for raising these important issues.

Lord McNally: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. This is an extremely important matter. I served on the wonderfully named RIP Bill, now an Act. I recall that the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, then were inevitably correct. Ministers and the department would do well to study carefully his amendments.
	The broader issue running through all his amendments is one that cuts both ways. I have heard arguments which declare that technological convergence makes legislation superfluous and unnecessary. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is shaking his head. As a democrat, that attitude goes against every fibre of my being. Whatever the complexity of the technological issues, Parliament should be able, capable and willing to deal with the problems that arise.
	One of those problems is of the kind referred to by my noble friend Lord Avebury; that is, print media on the Internet. Similarly, although we might agonise about taste and decency on television, you can send your nine year-old child to his room, where shortly he could use his 3G telephone to access a Dutch porn channel. It is that convergence of technology which forms the background to the Bill, but which will produce many of the problems that this amendment seeks to tackle.
	All the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, present the challenge we must face. We are dealing with compartments of communications systems, but convergence is going to render some of the protections we put in place in certain compartments unworkable because of technological change.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I wish to intervene very briefly because I had intended to bring forward a similar issue under a later amendment. The noble Earl has done the Committee a valuable service with his amendment. He has caused us to think about these matters.
	We are being asked to refer to material published by means of electronic media. If you try to look up what that is, it is clarified by subsection (2) as material distributed,
	"by means of an electronic communications network"
	to members of the public. That is roughly what is meant by this new series of words which seek to incorporate almost all the elements of interactive machinery.
	If we follow the paper trail through to Clause 398, which sets out the general interpretations, to Clause 29(1), we are told that it is a,
	"transmission system for the conveyance . . . of signals of any description".
	I do not know if Members of the Committee are any the wiser for that, but it illustrates how complicated this is.
	Although I think I already know the answer, I wish to ask whether it applies to the Internet, however it is accessed—mobile 3G telephones and so forth—because, as we all know, with the advent of broadband we shall be using our computers in all kinds of ways. If the answer is "No, and deliberately so, because that is left to the self-regulation arm of the proposal", is that wise? We are bound to be reaching the point when there should be at least some duty on Ofcom, even if not to regulate formally, perhaps at least to approve codes. I see nothing in this Bill that gives one confidence that the whole area is being looked at in the detail required at this stage.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My reply to this debate has been anticipated by nearly every speaker, and in every case wrongly. I do not disagree at all with the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. He is quite right in saying that, if we have provision in Clause 3(2)(f) in respect of radio and television services, there ought to be comparable provision for electronic communication network service users—there is no doubt about that. I shall not rely on Clause 3(3)(e); nor on saying that the matter should not be covered in legislation. I shall rely directly on my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on Amendment No. 10: any standards imposed by Ofcom would have to be consistent with the new European regulatory regime for electronic communications, including the new directive on privacy and electronic communications, to which I referred in some detail.
	That directive updates the existing telecom data protection and privacy rules. It will introduce new e-mail and Internet controls. It will not mean us controlling the Internet. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that that is not our aim. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, we intend to implement the directive in the UK by means of separate regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 for the reason that I gave—it is wider than the remit of Ofcom. We do not think that an additional general duty on Ofcom of the kind proposed in the amendment is necessary or useful.
	We started consultation on 27th March. As it is a complex issue, we expect a large response. But we shall implement the directive and put in place a set of controls that will have the enormous virtue of covering Europe. It is not a UK matter, it is an international one.

The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to everyone who contributed to this mini debate. I confess that I am also slightly embarrassed. Normally, when one holds a debate, at least one person opposes the proposal. Curiously, even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agrees with the principle of the amendment. There is utter consistency of view throughout the Committee that the amendment approaches an issue of considerable substance that needs to be dealt with. I am grateful for the Minister's response. I recognise that there is an overarching temptation, almost a seduction, to assume that the best way to deal with Net problems is to wait until everyone in the world gets their act together and to do it in that way. I do not necessarily agree with that, but that is by the by.
	My real problem with the Communications Bill—and this issue was elaborated upon most perfectly by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—is that it creates an enormous inconsistency, about which I remain truly concerned. I beseech the Government and the Minister not to have too closed a mind about the matter—if not on my behalf, on that of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who has much more experience of these matters than me. I am embarrassed that the whole Committee, including the government Front Bench, is happy with the principles underpinning the amendment. For the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I shall read closely what the Minister has said. But I suspect that I shall return to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

NHS Bodies and Local Authorities Partnership Arrangements (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003

Baroness Greengross: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 11th March, be annulled (S.I. 2003/629).

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I have tabled this prayer to annul this statutory instrument because I think it deserves quite serious scrutiny in this House. I do not intend to divide the House but rather I wish to seek clarification on issues raised by it.
	Several organisations have raised concerns about the regulation, most notably Age Concern England, of which I am the vice-president, Help the Aged and the Alzheimer's Disease Society. It is their concerns that I wish to bring to noble Lords' attention today. But, if the impact of the regulations were more widely understood, or if the consultation had been made more public and had lasted longer after the publication of the regulations in mid-March, I am certain that we would also have heard from other organisations. This statutory instrument relates not only to older people but anyone charged for social care—although, we know that the majority are likely to be older people.
	As noble Lords will know, the background to this regulation is the Health Act 1999, which gave wide powers to the Secretary of State to define functions carried out by local authorities as health-related functions. That power is being used here to delegate certain administrative functions related to charging for social care to the NHS from local authorities. At first reading, it seems straightforward and uncontroversial. But the main worry is that there could be unintended consequences of what appears to be a minor administrative change but which may take on a wider significance and may be misunderstood by the public.
	Given that last month's Budget, thankfully and somewhat belatedly, abolished the very unpopular hospital down-rating rule whereby older people's state pension was docked if they were in hospital too long, I am sure that the Government do not want people to feel—even though that is very much not the case—that the NHS is charging them for something they thought would be free. If that perception takes hold, it could do great damage and confuse an already very confused picture on the still-vexed question of what is healthcare and what is social care.
	I understand why the regulation is being introduced. It makes administrative sense. But in what other areas is that likely to happen? I ask the Minister whether the regulations will also be extended to charges under the Supporting People legislation. After all, many local authorities will use the home-care charging policies to charge for Supporting People services more generally.
	There are also some specific concerns such as confidentiality. Many more staff will now have access to confidential financial information—people employed by the NHS and social services. I am very much in favour of greater joint working between them, which is an issue that this House debated at length when considering the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill before Easter. If they are to work jointly, they must share information. But, given the sensitive nature of financial information, the rules on who will handle it, and how it is handled, may need to be even stricter than they would have been if the information were available only within social services.
	I wonder whether it would help to avoid confusion, particularly among older people, about who is levying the charge if all financial information gathering were done only by NHS staff within the finance section of the trust or the partnership, and not by staff who are traditionally seen as health staff, such as nurses or other medical staff. This is often considered to be best practice within social services where it has been found that the collection of information about finances is more accurately and sensibly undertaken by finance department staff. Other staff will not necessarily know, nor can they be expected to know, the full details of social security benefits and the law and guidance on charging.
	That brings me to the question of training, specifically of NHS staff whether from the finance department or nurses on wards. The rules are so complicated—we all wish that they were not—but these staff are no doubt already asked by patients about care costs and perhaps may give erroneous information, quite unintentionally but because they cannot know it all. The problem may get worse if NHS staff are actually responsible for providing that information, which is why training of key staff is essential.
	I was given a good example of that by Age Concern. Not very long ago, a patient asked a nurse about what would happen if she went into residential care. The nurse said that she would have to sell her house. Fortunately for this patient, the person in the opposite bed just happened to be a local welfare rights officer. Although very ill and on a drip, she was so incensed by this that she jumped out of bed to explain to the lady, who was distraught, that that advice was wrong because the value of her home would be ignored while her husband lived in it.
	At Age Concern, everyone said that a PhD was needed to be poor successfully. Such information is very difficult to understand and take in. There is no reason why every nurse on a ward should have access to it. Such situations can easily arise. Luckily for that patient, everything was okay, but it might not have been.
	I turn briefly to some areas that are not being delegated to the NHS by these regulations and which could be another problem. I refer first to liable relatives and to the assessment of the liable relative contribution. This was the subject of much debate in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 when I tabled various amendments. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was very sympathetic, but it was not possible to end liable relative payments at that time. With this new regulation in place, it may make it more complicated and more bureaucratic for a local authority which collects liable relative payments to work out the total amount to be paid by the family if other parts of the social care charging regime are being handled administratively by the NHS. It could be very confusing for both patients and relatives to have, in effect, one bill arriving from the NHS on behalf of the local authority for the resident and another arriving from the local authority for the liable relative contribution. That is not a fanciful situation; it could happen.
	There are a couple of other areas where the regulations have left not delegated powers, such as recovery—I mean financial recovery, not personal recovery where the nurse and doctor are far better qualified than anyone else—where a person misrepresents or fails to disclose income or capital and the fees owed to social services for taking on receivership. For receivership cases, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she expects one impact of the regulations to be that the NHS takes on receivership cases as, in effect, all the people involved in caring for that person will be within the NHS. That could happen.
	I know that the Department of Health has sought to ensure that those interested in these regulations are consulted and well informed. However, I seek reassurance from the Minister that her department will require local authorities to consult with the wider community of service users and their local representative groups about the impact of these regulations. That is very important if partnership working is to be a reality. It may also be important in helping to ensure that the unintended consequences I referred to earlier do not occur.
	Finally, I seek clarification on how "local authority discretion" will work in the light of this regulation. The domiciliary charging system is wholly based on discretion. Even following the implementation of the Fairer Charging Framework, there are many areas where discretion is used on an individual basis, such as when something is accepted as a disability-related cost or whether to disregard some capital that has been earmarked for a large item.
	In summary, while the regulations appear uncontroversial, they raise some concerns—some of which I covered in my remarks—on which I hope that I can be reassured. I beg to move the humble Address and I hope that it has the support of noble Lords from all sides of the House.
	Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 11th March, be annulled (S.I. 2003/629).—(Baroness Greengross.)

Baroness Barker: My Lords, in supporting the noble Baroness, I declare my interest as an employee of Age Concern England. I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this Prayer today. She has brought to the attention of the House a matter of very fundamental importance and not just in the particular terms that we shall discuss it this evening.
	She has hit upon a theme which has been ever-present in health policy during all the time that I have been in your Lordships' House. That theme can be expressed in one of two ways. Beneficially, it can be described as breaking down the barriers between health and social care. Conversely, it can be viewed as bringing in charging policies by stealth. That arises from the fact that health and social care are covered by two different sets of legislation and that the process to which we turn time and time again is about finding out where the barriers of those two sets of legislation collide.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for this because of the nature of the consultation. She said that the nature of the consultation on this matter was somewhat odd: it hit the Department of Health website on 19th December and had a closing date of 31st January. To the best of my knowledge that is the only format in which the consultation was held. During that period I did not pay a great deal of attention to the matter and I am not sure how many others paid attention either. I was somewhat preoccupied with figuring out how the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill would work. What was the level of response? What was the nature of the response to the consultation? I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right. This looks like a simple administrative function but actually there is a huge underlying question as to what exactly are health-related functions.
	I shall concentrate on a couple of areas which are unclear and on which it would be very helpful to have clarification from the Minister. One issue is disputes, a matter about which we have talked a great deal in your Lordships' House in relation to the establishment of care trusts. When someone has a dispute on this matter—where a health body is discharging the charging functions of a social services department—first, as the noble Baroness said, there is scope for confusion that the NHS is charging for NHS services. I agree with everything that she said about the need for clarity on that. But if a person has a dispute about the nature of a charge for a social care service, to whom do they complain? Which complaints procedure do they use? My big fear is that the answer will be that they use the NHS complaints procedure. But, frankly, the NHS complaints procedures are not set up for this. They are primarily geared towards clinical matters. They are not about financial matters. Moreover, as I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House, NHS complaints procedures take for ever. So that is a very big concern.
	My second question relates to the issue of legal enforcement. If a person refuses to pay, will the NHS be responsible for the legal enforcement of a social services charge? If so, will the money obtained be social services or health service money? Will the NHS end up taking people to court over a matter with which it has nothing to do, essentially, because it is a social services matter?
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I have many doubts about confidentiality. I have no wish to rehearse the many arguments we had during the passage of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill but, for a glorious period of about 10 days, when the issue of consent was contained in a piece of legislation, we spent many happy hours talking about the principles of the confidentiality of patient information.
	The noble Baroness is right. There is a great deal of potential for people to be resistant to passing information to the NHS, particularly to people such as nurses with whom they do not associate financial matters. Unless there is a clear explanation, I question whether the process might compromise the integrity of healthcare.
	Let me take your Lordships back to one of my favourite documents, Delivering the NHS Plan. Noble Lords will remember that that document contains a proposal that the NHS should be free to set up joint companies with the independent sector to deliver services—for example, nursing homes. If that is to be the case, will the NHS become the body setting the charges, making individual assessments and providing care? If so, what safeguards will there be for individuals? That is not clear from the information before us.
	I do not wish to take your Lordship too far down the road of reconsidering the ombudsman's report—we have discussed it at considerable length—but the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right: there is still a great deal of confusion about what kind of social care is ancillary to health needs and it would be dangerous to put on top of that confused legislation such as this.
	I acknowledge the excellent briefing we have received from the Alzheimer's Society, which sets out in great detail the fears that people have. They already start from a point of confusion. They have expectations that services for people who are severely demented will be regarded as healthcare, but they are not; they are regarded as social care. There is a great fear that charging for those services—and the charging being carried out by the NHS—will put people off.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the Government that there is a need to break down the barriers between social services and health and that it should be done in an up-front and transparent manner. That cause is not helped by actions that can be perceived as being at best confused and at worst an attempt to alter policy by stealth. If the Minister can assure the House that front-line staff such as nurses will not be sidelined into doing this kind of work, we will have achieved a great deal today.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on initiating the debate and for drawing our attention to some issues of considerable interest and importance. I confess that I sat down and read these regulations and the Explanatory Note which accompanies them and felt little the wiser at the end. It is fairly impenetrable. Having listened to the noble Baroness today, I feel that I am now a good deal wiser. But it will, I am sure, be of considerable assistance to all of us to hear in the Minister's own words what she regards as being the sense and purport of the regulations and the reasons why they have been introduced.
	We are all familiar with the idea of partnerships between the NHS and local government. On the whole I believe that we regard such partnerships as a good thing. The Health Act 1999 ushered in the legal powers to enable such joint working to occur, not least in the form of pooled budgets. The regulations in front of us flow at least in part from that Act. Broadly speaking, where local authorities perform functions which affect people's health, then the Secretary of State has the power to define and influence those functions.
	My first question to the Minister is whether collecting information about people, issuing invoices to them and making sure that they pay those invoices constitute a set of activities that can be said to have an effect on those people's health. At first sight, I am not at all convinced that they do. None of those activities is a service delivered to individuals; they are a series of administrative processes. So I question whether the wording of the Act was meant to cover the kind of function that these regulations encompasses.
	That is my first, rather technical, observation. My second one is that for a local authority to delegate certain functions to the NHS carries with it two kinds of risk. The first kind of risk is that the barrier between local government and the health service will be bridged too easily. The second kind of risk is the opposite, which is that important issues will not get properly across the bridge but will instead fall between the cracks.
	In the first camp lies the noble Baroness's concern about confidentiality. It is all very well to envisage local government passing some of its functions to the NHS for reasons of convenience or expediency, but what kind of say does the patient have about who can have access to the information collected? I do not know how I would feel if I were quizzed by NHS staff about how much money I had or what my house was worth. I might see the need to divulge this kind of information to a local government official in certain circumstances, but would I feel comfortable disclosing it to a nurse or to a hospital manager? I doubt it—which is why I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that there need to be strict, tightly-defined procedures for dealing with this kind of process, where informed patient consent plays a central role.
	The second camp contains most of the other points so cogently put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Barker. Breaking down the barriers between local government and the NHS should not leave any room for either ambiguity or unprofessionalism. Local government staff who have to perform the sensitive job of explaining the charging rules to service users and exercising discretion where that is required—as it often is—about what charges are appropriate to someone's domicilary care, are experienced and trained in those roles. If NHS staff are to be asked to take over those roles, then they have to know what they are doing. That is not meant to sound disrespectful to NHS staff, but the fact is that none of us could perform those tasks without being suitably trained, any more than a nurse or a hospital administrator can be expected to do them. It would be most helpful to hear from the Minister how the delegation of tasks by local authorities to the NHS is to be accompanied by the necessary propagation of skills.
	We also need clarity about where the buck stops. When local government functions are performed by local government there is no ambiguity on that score. When local government functions are delegated to another public body, where does the responsibility lie in both practical and legal terms? The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made the point very well. If the NHS sends a bill to someone and that person does not pay, whose responsibility is it to take enforcement action? Who is the arbiter of disputes? Everyone involved in a partnership arrangement needs to be absolutely clear about where responsibilities ultimately rest, not just legally but practically.
	I share the noble Baroness's view that we can talk positively about partnership arrangements and wish those arrangements well when they happen. But when they do happen, people have got to know what the full implications are; and that means consulting beforehand those directly affected. I hope that such consultation will be automatic in each instance, because these are not necessarily straightforward matters. It is very helpful that the Minister has an opportunity to allay the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has identified, for I believe that they are concerns that are shared around the whole House.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for creating an opportunity for the House to discuss these regulations in terms of the Prayer that she has laid. I am even more grateful that she has not only advised me of some of her concerns, but also that she has said that she will not be praying against the regulations this evening. However, it is a useful opportunity that has been taken by noble Lords to explore some of the issues that are raised in the regulations, and we should be grateful for that. I will try to deal with as many of the questions that have been raised as possible. There is a consensus among noble Lords about some of those issues, and I hope that I can give fairly full answers.
	I will start by explaining what the original legislation was intended to do. I will also start by saying something about the consultation period, because I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was concerned about the short period of time. We did notify the local authorities and the voluntary organisations and we did actually use e-mail. So it was not quite as slow as she implied. We did not just put it on the website, we did actually invite a positive response. But she is right, the responses were low and we had only approximately 15 responses. They were from a mixture of local authorities and voluntary organisations and so on. We opted for a six-week consultation period because two of the three amendments were uncontroversial, and I shall explain at the end of my speech why they were so uncontroversial.
	The third option, the controversial one which we are discussing, Regulation 5, is in fact a voluntary choice, but even so, it was something that we certainly wanted to consult on. We did want responses and we received very well-informed responses from the people who replied. The original legislation was essentially designed to address the issues that were covered by the original regulations. The focus of the original partnership arrangements were set out in the NHS Bodies and Local Authority Partnerships (England) Regulations 2002. As noble Lords know, that was designed to encourage joint working between the NHS and local authorities; and it has been warmly welcomed, because to be against joint working is like being against sin. We cannot be anything other than in favour of it.
	These regulations introduce new ways for agencies to work together to provide the best possible service for local people. Using the powers of Section 31 of the Health Act 1999, local authority and health partners can now pool different pots of money. They can make better use of resources. They can try better and more ambitious projects and essentially they can put their staff teams together under the same managers so that social workers, district nurses and care assistants can work from day to day in the same teams. I am pleased to say that since those powers were introduced we have seen a flourishing of over 200 new projects notified to the department, ranging from the very straightforward such as integrated community equipment to multi-million pound joint ventures.
	The amendments before us are essentially designed to make some necessary changes and clarification; and I hope that that the noble Baroness will be pleased with the clarification. First, in relation to Regulation 5, which primarily concerns us, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the changes proposed are for a very specific purpose and will only be needed and used by a very small number of care trusts and large-scale NHS-led partnerships which are transferring substantial sections of their administrative arrangements from local authorities to the NHS. The proposed amendment ensures that councils can only delegate charging for the particular care services which the partnership is delivering. They are very specific and they can only do that under the conditions set out in these amendments and the forthcoming guidance, which I want to spend a little time describing.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether the collection of administrative tasks that he identified really do affect health. Section 31(a) to the Health Act 1999 defines health-related functions, not only in terms of the effect on health, but whether they are connected with any functions of NHS bodies. So the technical answer is yes. However, I add from a more personal point of view, that the collection of this kind of financial information can be stressful, and can have an impact on health. So in the broader context I would say yes to that, too.
	Let me deal with some of the concerns that have been raised. One of them is obviously that, because this involves a transfer to an NHS-led partnership, NHS staff may take over the new tasks and there may be some ensuing confusion. It is a serious issue, but it is an issue which might be raised wherever joint working takes place. As I have said, joint working has been welcomed, and is one of the things which we all agree provides an opportunity to create new approaches to the way in which we provide services. It also creates an opportunity to use new language, to develop new roles for people across services, and will deliver better services. That is what these regulations exemplify.
	Regulation 5 simply means that if a local council decides to transfer some of its staff to the NHS to work in integrated teams in relation to care trusts or NHS-led partnerships, it can now also choose to transfer those functions and the staff who work on charging for those services alongside them. There is an element of continuity here, because those staff who have been transferred will carry on with the work that they have always done—but now within the integrated team.
	The kinds of tasks that are involved—assessing an individual's ability to pay, collecting charging and monitoring how charging is working—will be the things that are important to the client. It has not been possible until now to do this. It means under the current legislation that council staff are still required to make decisions about people for whom all other services are being handled by the new partnership teams. I will give noble Lords a practical example of the impact of that.
	I believe that this brings a better service and I want to reassure the noble Baroness that under the new arrangements the charging administration is likely to involve the very same council staff, such as finance assessment teams who have transferred into the NHS under partnership arrangements. At this stage, it is unlikely that new people will be involved. Therefore, we are not assuming that there will be any change or confusion for clients.
	However, these are evolving projects; these are evolving and developing institutions. Over time, they may come to involve new people; either new recruits for the NHS team or existing NHS staff such as care managers. That involves retraining. In fact, they might involve the finance staff. It would be up to the partnership to decide who is best placed to deliver that.
	Let me stress the evolving nature of the role. We believe that it will allow time for adjustment, particularly for proper training. I want to pick up and reinforce everything all noble Lords said about the importance of appropriate training. We see it as extremely important, but the case which the noble Baroness cited was a good example of bad practice. I am sure it is not the kind of practice to which we would want to expose any patient in any situation.
	In a new framework, with new languages and opportunities, it is important to recognise that staff have a changing and expanding role. They will be trained in different ways for different purposes. We are bringing together health and social care for the first time. We have lessons to learn, but training sits at the heart of that, particularly in response to the complexity of information, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out.
	I can assure noble Lords that there will not be a sudden shift from care responsibilities to financial responsibilities; nor will there be a sudden shift to new staff. That is where confusion could occur. As regards the training that is provided, I put it to your Lordships that few people could be better suited to providing advice on benefits or charges than those people who will have the day-to-day contact with clients, wherever they are. A person involved in arranging someone's care, properly trained, will be in a good position to put the whole picture together and give the right information.
	Therefore, rather than undermining or changing the relationship between the NHS and clients, we see this as a way of supporting and growing close and confident relationships for the future.
	I turn to the issue of confidentiality. As the noble Baroness said, we have addressed this many times in this House in recent months. When Age Concern, for example, responded to consultation, obviously it wanted to ensure that there would be clear arrangements about which staff should be able to collect financial information. We share that concern. But, in the first instance, all organisations operating in partnership are required to adhere to strict protocols on information sharing and confidentiality and that includes the Data Protection Act and the Caldecote principles. We will reiterate that in the guidance that we will prepare.
	In the second instance, I would argue that in practice the fewer people who are involved in managing the process of information and the support that is given, the more likely it is that confidentiality will be protected. I completely take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that if one knows the person involved, it is more likely that one will obtain more personal, sensitive and effective support. Therefore, all information about the person's care and financial arrangements under the new arrangements may be kept within one organisation and team instead of continually trafficking between the NHS and the local authority.
	Under these regulations, care managers, who know the service users well, will be able to undertake those sensitive financial assessments while they are arranging their care package. It means fewer people being involved and fewer visits being made. But, again, it is imperative that those working in the field and the service users are clear about the changes involved and what they must do to communicate their impact.
	That is why we have put the requirement for information to be provided into regulations rather than into guidance. Regulations 6 and 7 cover that point. It means that partnerships must explain to service users which services they are being offered, which elements of a care package are the responsibility of the NHS, which are the responsibility of the local authority and what the charges are for. Those regulations will be backed up by guidance. I want to emphasise that we will be consulting with all interested parties on that guidance. The regulations and the guidance will therefore deal with the other major concerns which were raised in conversation and which were referred to by noble Lords today.
	However, the amendments have the potential to cause confusion for service users; that somehow NHS services free at the point of use and local authorities will be conflated and that NHS services might incur a charge.
	Let me be absolutely clear about this: the legislation in no way alters or compromises the overriding principle that NHS services are free at the point of use. There are no loopholes that will enable charging to creep into NHS services. The amendment is focused on the local authority functions that have already been delegated. The only services that can be charged for are the social care services that carry charges at the moment such as home care or residential charges. The partnership could not decide to move outside the framework already set by the council. Those changes do not represent in any sense a take-over of local government powers by the NHS.
	Two other points have been raised. Locally accountable councils remain firmly responsible in law for charging policy, determining which services incur a charge, what they should be and the eligibility criteria for a service. Nothing changes that overriding principle or shifts that responsibility. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I can also reassure noble Lords that these amendments do not enable the delegation of the legal enforcement of payment. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on that point. That must remain with the council.
	I now deal with a specific point which goes to the heart of some of the issues. When Age Concern responded to consultation it raised the prospect of a service user receiving a bill for care on NHS headed paper. It expressed fears that it had the potential to cause confusion and upset. We do not want that. Our response is that the key to avoiding service user confusion is a very clear information policy which sets out which services are being offered, which organisation is legally responsible for which services and which charges apply to the local authority services within the package. We agree that branding issues are very important. That is what people see and make a judgment on that basis. We will specifically mention this in guidance as something which partners should consider carefully.
	The guidance will reflect and reiterate many of the issues that we have talked about today. It will emphasise the importance of appropriate training for all staff involved in charging administration. Councils will be required to ensure that any NHS-based team taking on charging administration and a delegated authority includes people with appropriate financial expertise. It will emphasise that partnerships must explain clearly to service users exactly what service is being received, where the responsibility falls and so forth, and what charges, if any, they may expect to receive for the social care element of their package, as already set out in Regulations 6 and 7.
	The guidance will also require councils to ensure that they can monitor the effectiveness of charging policy across the whole of the local authority. I reiterate that we shall be consulting with interested parties on all these matters and what the guidance will contain. We shall be listening carefully to what people tell us.
	I now take up a few of the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness. Liable relatives will not be included because that function is not delegable. I reassure the noble Baroness about that. The question of receivership will not be delegable. That is outside the scope of the provisions. Where there is an element of discretion about individual cases, it can be applied under the amendment, but only within the parameters set by the councils themselves. How to handle some of the issues that involve elements of discretion will be a matter for negotiation between the council and the NHS.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked me whether the regulations applied to supporting people on home care. The short answer is no. It is rather a technical judgment so I shall write to the noble Baroness to give her the background to the issue.
	Perhaps I may say very briefly why we have introduced these regulations and what has inspired them. I shall be frank with the House. They are necessary because they correct a legislative error that has led to some inconsistency. It is already legally possible for councils to delegate charging functions to the NHS where these relate to home care services and non-residential services. That was an unintended consequence of the Care Standards Act 2000, which redesignated charging for home care services as a social service function and therefore made it delegable under Section 31. Our changes close that loophole and ensure that charging for home care services is treated now in the same way as any other service delegated under the principal Act. So home care and residential services will be brought into line now. But there is the positive change that I have been arguing tonight. It means that if you delegate the service, you can delegate the charging that relates to it. Local authorities who responded to our public consultation on the amendment supported that change. One care trust, Northumberland, was very proactive in initiating the change. Northumberland argued that it needed the amendment as it would give it increased flexibility with regard to how it arranged its services with NHS partners and in considering how they could best be provided. That case study says much that is rather hard to explain in a more abstract way. Northumberland explained that without the amendment it would face some serious practical difficulties.
	Early last year there were some changes to social security benefits which meant that a group of older care home residents suddenly needed to submit claims for the first time. One of the council's care managers had previously worked as a financial assessment officer. Therefore, she both knew the residents and understood the financial issues. She was able to deal with the financial forms as part of her care management review of resident care plans. But if a similar issue had arisen once the care management team had transferred to the NHS, under the current legislation the only option would have been to send an administrative officer from the council as members of the care team would have been barred from being sent. However sympathetic that person might have been, he or she would not have known the residents and would have been less able to calm anxieties or to address other questions.
	The regulations seek to make the most of joint working and to provide better services. Essentially they seek to organise services around the client. They are benign measures. I believe that they are the best of measures. They offer choice. It is a voluntary scheme. The regulations do not prescribe the way things should be done. They offer absolutely no compromise to the principle of the NHS being free to users. They introduce no new charges. They strengthen integration. The changes have been driven by practitioners.
	If the amended regulations had been opposed—I am pleased that the noble Baroness has stated that she will not oppose them—it would not have meant the end of partnership working but it would have prevented Northumberland and other partners like them from operating in the future as they would want.
	I refer to two other aspects of the regulations. I remind noble Lords that if they oppose the regulations they will prevent the Isles of Scilly from operating partnership arrangements. I am sure that we would not want to do that. We would also hold up the consultation on care trusts which is hardly controversial consultation.
	I must confess that we have discovered a typing error in the regulations. Our solicitor's advice is that it does not in any way affect the way in which the regulations will operate in law. However, we have noted the error and we shall correct it at the earliest opportunity. In Regulation 5(2)(k) reference is made to Section 23(2) of the National Assistance Act 1948. That reference should be to Section 23(3).
	I hope that having heard the explanation of what the regulations are intended to achieve, they are acceptable to your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships consider that they are a positive step to increasing local flexibility in joint working. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their contributions. I am especially grateful for the Minister's detailed, comprehensive and frank response. She dealt with most and possibly all my concerns and clarified the situation a great deal. If any of my concerns are still outstanding, I hope that I may write to the Minister. However, as I said at the outset, I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.24 until 8.35 p.m.]

Communications Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 3.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) the promotion of broadband competition in the United Kingdom at all levels of the market"

The Earl of Northesk: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak first to grouped Amendments Nos. 315 and 316—which are straightforward and offer alternative and measurable definitions of what broadband actually is, which is hugely important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, is only too aware of the issues that concern me—if only from the Written Questions from me that he has had to field. In November 2001, I asked the Government what data transfer feeds they used to determine whether an Internet connection can be defined as broadband. The noble Lord replied that they had
	"offered an initial definition of broadband as always-on, unmetered Internet services with a downstream (from supplier to home or business user) speed of more than 384 kbit/s".
	Fair enough. I am sure that your Lordships will have grasped why I tabled an amendment that articulates a definition of broadband that is consistent with this. Unfortunately, the waters get murkier. In November 2002, the noble Lord offered me these words of wisdom, observing that
	"the speed of broadband connections, which at 512 kbps is 10 times faster than a standard dial-up modem".—[Official Report, 4/11/02; col. WA 77.]
	I received that reply with some delight. For all sorts of reasons, that is my personal preference as a definition of broadband. Not unreasonably, I returned to the issue in March and April to see whether the initial definition elaborated upon last November had solidified into something more robust and definitive. The noble Lord's reply stated:
	"The Government view broadband as a generic term describing a range of technologies operating at various data transfer speeds".—[Official Report, 11/3/03; col. WA 179.]
	Does it matter? It does, for a number of reasons. As Simon Goodley, writing in the Daily Telegraph put it:
	"If you were being particularly pedantic . . . the DTI's new definition could technically include ISDN services (which have been round for a decade) and might even extend to a carrier pigeon holding a floppy disk in its beak,"
	In effect, connections at less than 384 kbps—which most industry observers would define as either midband or narrowband—are included in the figures to assess the take-up of broadband, thereby seriously inflating the true position. It has been estimated that if all 128 kbps or less cable modem connections were stripped out of the data currently published by Oftel, the realistic number of "true" broadband connections in the UK would drop from 1.4 million to—from memory—something a little over 700,000. Viewed from that perspective, BT's digital subscriber line market share rises to something like 65 per cent.
	I understand some of the motivation behind Oftel and the Government adopting the definitional approach that they do—not least, international benchmarking. Nevertheless, I make no apology for my conviction that it does little to establish the healthy and vibrant competitive market across the whole sector that the Government maintain that they want.
	Viewed from a technical standpoint, data transfer speed, and thereby an appropriate and accurate definition of broadband, is crucial. What matters is that the real benefits of Internet communication are constrained by the speed of data transfer. Simon Goodley from the Daily Telegraph again states that,
	"what cut-down services don't do very effectively is precisely what the Government said it wanted mass broadband for. Mid-band does not put us at 'the centre of the information economy', the place where the DTI constantly reminds us we need to be. It is also not much use for services such as video streaming, which may primarily be an entertainment source but also has commercial and educational applications. Whether you think any of this is beneficial, it is what the Government wanted broadband to do".
	The point was vividly brought home to me in America—I duly apologise to the Minister—by news coverage of the war in Iraq. Because I was in the United States, I do not know to what extent the UK media chose to use the technology of videophones and so on to get the news to us. However, in America, grainy and fuzzy images of the star reporters of each network were broadcast pretty much every hour of the day. No matter that the images froze all the time, or cut the reporter off mid-sentence; from the networks' point of view, it was news in the raw, delivered live, up-front and as it happened. My guess would be that had the reporters been able to file, or rather broadcast, their stories at faster data transfer speeds, the quality on TV screens would have been much closer to the standard that we have come to expect.
	I should say, too, that the Prime Minister has got himself involved in the issue. Members of the Committee will no doubt recall his statement on his return from the European Council meeting in Barcelona of March last year. He stated the Government's commitment, as an endorsement of a pan-European policy objective—the Minister referred to that on the previous amendment—to deliver broadband technology that will allow,
	"internet access at 10 times the present speed",
	by 2005. By any measure, and as confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in March this year, that implies,
	"products in the 500–600 kbps range".—[Official Report, 31/3/03; cols. WA 98–99.]
	I am sure that Members of the Committee now see why I favour the 512 kbps measure.
	It is also worth noting the recent judgment of the Advertising Standards Authority against NTL. Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be aware of the case where a complaint against NTL was upheld because it had advertised its 128 kbps Internet access service as a "high speed broadband product". In the sense that NTL had been complying with Oftel's definition, there should have been no complaint. However, as a spokeswoman for the ASA put it:
	"If you just call it 'high-speed broadband' then consumers will take this to mean a service of at least 500 kbit/sec".
	The perception and confidence of consumers is crucial. I cannot help feeling that if Oftel, the ASA and indeed the Government are confused about what properly constitutes broadband products, sure as eggs are eggs, consumers will be, too.
	Finally, in so far as it could be portrayed as such, any slippage in the Government's definition can be interpreted as a watering-down of their commitment to broadband. That in turn calls into question targets such as establishing the UK as the most competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2007. All that explains why it is so important that a credible, clear-cut and agreed definition of broadband should be in general circulation. Amendments Nos. 315 and 316 set out alternative means for achieving that.
	I apologise for spending quite so much time on those subsidiary amendments, but Members of the Committee will have grasped that much of what I have already said informs the purpose and intention of the lead amendment. Happily, I can therefore curtail some of the remarks that I might have wished to make. None the less, I should at least put a little more flesh on its bones.
	I do not think that any of us would disavow the benefits that broadband can bring. That case is already well made. We all would acknowledge that take-up in the early stages of broadband development in the UK was extremely disappointing. No matter; that much is history. However, in reaching conclusions about how to take things forward and deciding the shape and direction of broadband development over the next 10 years or so, we must be absolutely certain of exactly where we are now. For example, email traffic is at its highest level ever, with some communications service providers in the UK handling more than 16 million emails across each of their networks every day. In terms of infrastructure, it is a simple fact that outside cable franchise areas, BT has a virtual monopoly on broadband products.
	Whatever its virtue, very few telecommunications companies have entered the local loop unbundling market. Indeed, the regulator, David Edmonds, despite his high hopes for mass industry take-up, described it as a "niche market" in his evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 4th February of this year. That is the reality of where we are now.
	It is crucial that Ofcom, as the front-line regulator of this area, should have the means at its disposal proactively to promote and encourage the benefits that broadband can bring and, more importantly, to ensure that there is an effective competitive market across the breadth of the sector. Anything less runs a serious risk that consumers will be short-changed in the future to an even greater extent than they are being at the moment. Hence the amendment.
	I am only too well aware of the defence that Ministers in another place have mounted against the thrust of my intention. It is neatly encapsulated in a comment from Dr Kim Howells, who said:
	"There is no specific mention of broadband because the Bill is technologically neutral. We are committed to the roll-out of broadband across the United Kingdom, but we do not feel that it requires a specific mention in the Bill. The Bill is designed to put in place a framework that can respond flexibly to developments in technology, but it is not about one technology rather than another".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 10/12/02; col. 29.]
	I am sorry, but that completely baffles me. It is akin to the Government arguing that in the context of, for example, transportation, they have no wish to promote the technology of air travel because to do so might give it an edge over rail and road. That is ludicrous. If I am permitted to use this phrase, the beans were comprehensively spilled in a reply that I have already quoted from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. He said:
	"The Government view broadband as a generic term describing a range of technologies operating at various data transfer speeds".—[Official Report, 11/3/03; col. WA 179.]
	In other words, the Government do not perceive broadband to be a specific technology that can be put ahead of any other. As the noble Lord said (as it happened, correctly) it is a "range of technologies"—DSL, cable, wireless, satellite and so on—all of which compete with each other, or attempt to do so, in the marketplace. What, therefore, is the Government's beef about putting such a technologically neutral—and, I should argue, eminently reasonable and desirable—concept and objective in the Bill?
	For all sorts of reasons, and whatever the statistics may say, the UK is still not realising the full potential of its broadband opportunities. As things stand, there is a very real lack of competition in the sector, which is limiting customer choice on prices, service packages and service quality. However, by the same token, there is a real chance in this regard to produce legislation that not only addresses the problems, but looks and thinks forwards.
	Should the Government choose not to agree to the amendment—I do not have many hopes for it—there is a significant risk that the chance will be lost for the foreseeable future. It may be worse—I sincerely do not believe that I am exaggerating—because it could put the regulatory clock back by perhaps as much as 20 years to a much more monopolistic era. The choice really is that stark. I beg to move.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I rise briefly in broad agreement with the thrust of the noble Earl's latter two amendments, but I want to I suggest a minor change to Amendment No. 13.
	Towards the end of his speech, the noble Earl said that it should be Ofcom's duty to promote the take-up of broadband and to encourage competition. If only the first point as well as the second were inserted in the Bill, I should be happy. However, there is a grave danger of us overemphasising the potential of competition in this regard. In most of Britain, the great problem is not competition but the total lack of anyone willing to provide a service. As the noble Earl will recall, the broadband stakeholder group produced last autumn a report which divided Britain into four categories: category one, plenty of competition; category two, only one provider but satisfactory service; category three, subsidies required; and category four, political solutions required—which sounds like very big subsidies.
	In the light of that, to make it an obligation on Ofcom simply to go for competition could close off another option: to allow monopolies in large urban areas in exchange for a universal service provider to extend the service into rural areas which otherwise will not get it. At present, there is a bit of a fiddle whereby the Government one way or another through regional development agencies, or whatever, will be expected to foot the bill for Ofcom rather than the telecoms providers. I hope, therefore, that when the noble Earl returns to the matter on Report he will modify the amendment which otherwise would carry widespread support.

Lord Avebury: As the noble Lord implies, there is a trade-off between competition and take-up. We see that exemplified in figures which have been issued by the European Competitive Telecommunications Association. They demonstrate that in Germany there has been a high take-up. That is at the expense of monopolistic conditions because Deutsche Telekom has the total share of 100 per cent of the market. According to those figures, in Britain only a 51 per cent share of the market is held by BT. That is the lowest share of a major provider of any of the countries in Europe, apart from Germany which I have already mentioned. In France, it is 71 per cent; in Italy, 73 per cent; and in Spain, 77 per cent. According to those figures, the UK is about the most competitive country in Europe.
	Before I come to the question of competition, perhaps I may disrupt the harmony that has pervaded the amendment of the noble Earl. I hope that the Government will not accept the writing into the Bill of a definition of broadband. It is a rapidly moving technology. If we write such a figure into the Bill, it may shortly be out of date. One can see that when considering the report of Oftel published yesterday on the review of the wholesale broadband access market. Among other things, it reviews the previous definition of broadband. For the time being, the working definition is, first, that broadband provides higher speeds in excess of 256K downstream capacity; secondly, that it is an always-on service, or at least has the ability to establish rapidly a connection to the Internet; thirdly, it allows the use of the exchange lines for voice telephony and Internet access at the same time; and, fourthly, it allows content delivery which is not practical on narrowband Internet access such as realtime video content.
	The noble Lord may say that 256K is inadequate for some of the services that people demand. In particular, it is inadequate for video on demand. But the consumer is offered the choice. One can have a lower quality, 256K service, and one pays less for it; or one can have a 512K service and pay more for it. The market is sufficiently broad to allow for that customer choice to be exercised and for people to pick the service that suits their pocket and requirement. Some people may be perfectly happy to access news services on the Internet and to use it for sending and receiving e-mails in which case a 256K service is perfectly adequate for their requirements. Others may want something more sophisticated or to play games on the Internet, for example, and will want a high speed service. It is right that there should be that element of choice and as the services which are offered start at 256K, that is a useful working definition that Oftel should use, but it is not one that I feel would be appropriate to write into the Bill. In a year's time, or certainly within the lifetime of the Bill, things will be enormously different. If one considers the life span of any telecommunications Bill, we would expect it still to be working after 15 years. To put in a speed such as 384K would look quaint and old-fashioned by the end of that period.
	The noble Lord's amendment provides a useful opportunity for discussing the state of the broadband market, and usefully coincided with the report which I have just mentioned by Oftel on the subject. The Oftel report reviews the latest developments, which show very healthy rates of growth in broadband take-up with the number of subscribers reaching 1.15 million in February this year. It shows also that BT has been gaining market share since the beginning of 2001, as the noble Lord points out. It now has 57 per cent of the market compared with 28 per cent for NTL and 24 per cent for Telewest. However, perhaps even more striking is that BT is winning something like 70 to 80 per cent of the new subscribers. That arises from the last price drops which BT offered the public in 2002 amounting to as much as 50 per cent. Those prices are due to be reduced again on 1st May from £14.75 wholesale to £13.00 per end user per month, with further discounts for volume which will enable BT Openworld to buy IPStream services at £12.74.
	I declare an interest as a user of BT Openworld and I look forward to the further reductions in price which no doubt I shall be offered after 1st May as it gets the benefit of these lower wholesale prices. But during the same period there has been no equivalent reduction in Datastream charges, which cover the traffic from the exchange to the subscriber for the operator who wants to provide services over his own network. That is to say, this operator is providing services from the exchange backwards and not to the consumer from the exchange. Those users continue to pay £9.25 per end user per month. They say that in effect that difference is not enough to cover the cost of their network.
	One such operator, Tiscali, complained formally to Oftel and pointed out that although BT had agreed to align the terms for IPStream and Datastream by the end of March this year, product enhancements that are available on the first are not available on the second and that there is a three-month minimum sign-up commitment on the first compared with 12 months on the second. There are other complaints such as the migration path between IPStream and Datastream, which BT says it can provide only after September 2003 at a cost of £30, whereas Tiscali says it could be offered now and that an appropriate price would be £5.
	These competitive issues in the provision of broadband services are causing enormous arguments between the companies in the industry. However, the Bill allows for those matters to be considered by Ofcom and I hope it will take a robust attitude to the development of competition in the industry. We want all those services to be provided at a cost that users can afford.
	It is not for the Committee, however great the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, to dictate to Oftel or Ofcom how it will exercise the powers that will be given to it. All we can say is that we want a fully competitive market. We do not believe that it exists at the moment because there is a significant market power in the hands of one company. However, we believe that the powers that are given to Ofcom in the Bill will enable it to solve the problems of the kind I have outlined. I should sooner leave the Bill as it stands and rely upon the forces of Ofcom to deal with the problems of market penetration and competition that we know exist.

Baroness Buscombe: I rise to support my noble friend's amendments. It is necessary to stress the significance of broadband technology to our economy. It is becoming increasingly important for future growth and development. Government targets are not being met: they have failed to provide a competitive structure within which this technology can grow and flourish. An ascertainable funding framework needs to be achieved; promotion alone—words alone—are insufficient.
	I take note of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in relation to the need also to prioritise uptake. I can do no better than to use the words of my noble friend in another place, John Whittingdale, the shadow Secretary of State, who said:
	XA balance must be struck between promoting competition in the short term and encouraging investment in the short term and encouraging investment in the infrastructure in the longer term. In all such debates, the vital importance of increasing access to broadband must be a priority and Britain is lagging far behind in this respect. Although the number of households with broadband access has now passed l million, we are still way behind our competitors".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; col. 796.]
	I entirely support my noble friend's amendment, but perhaps thought might be given to including the word "uptake", or some such wording, in a revised amendment. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say in this regard.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have a brief contribution to make in this context in relation to Wales, because I believe that it is somewhat typical of rural areas in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is calculated that about 40 per cent of homes and businesses in Wales can have broadband through ADSL technology and cable modems. This compares with a UK average of about 70 per cent. Recognising the urgency of addressing this gap, the Welsh Assembly government have launched the Broadband Wales programme, which will spend about £115 million on a balanced programme of demand-side and supply-side measures to stimulate making broadband ubiquitous throughout Wales.
	That level of public-sector support makes the broadband scene in Wales very different from that in other parts of the UK. It will obviously be important to ensure that Ofcom takes account of the situation. I am told that wireless systems have an important part to play in the roll-out of broadband in Wales—and, I am sure, elsewhere—which means that the licensing arrangements for suitable radio spectrum are also critical. I am told that the recent 3.4GHz spectrum licensing decision to split Wales into four parts, each linked with larger and more prosperous parts of England, was taken very much against advice in Wales. Again, that demonstrates the importance of making strong representations on behalf of Wales in future licensing rounds.
	I say all this because not only is it relevant to my noble friend's amendment, but also because it is relevant to other later amendments that relate to the setting up of an Ofcom office in Wales, and its consequentials.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two quite different issues involved here. The first is the issue of government support for broadband, and the progress that is being made in the development of broadband in this country. The second issue is whether in support of that government objective it is either necessary or desirable to have in the Bill a reference to broadband of the kind proposed in these amendments.
	I have not heard it denied that the Government have given very active support to broadband in this country. We have a target of achieving the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. By no means are we there yet. Last August we were assessed as being fourth for competitiveness and fifth for extensiveness. But we are pulling away from those behind us and catching up with those ahead. In particular, we are more competitive than our European neighbours, although less competitive than, for example, Canada or Japan.
	Coverage and take-up of broadband are both increasing. The latest figures show that the number of broadband users now stands at over 1.75 million, and is increasing by 35,000 a week. In case the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, thinks that that is a phoney figure, only 20 per cent of those 1.75 million users are at a lower figure than 500K. So use is running at the least at 1.4 million within his definition, and certainly nothing like the 700,000 that he suggested.
	Some 71 per cent of the population now has access to mass market broadband services. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right to point out that the percentage is far lower in Wales. That problem is being addressed by the Welsh Assembly.
	Turning to the technologies, it is true that there are a number of different systems. Probably the most common is ADSL, but I have to say that it is an intermediate technology. ADSL still uses coaxial copper cable. Within the expected lifetime of this Bill, I cannot imagine that ADSL will still be around. We have cable and fibre-optics, as well as fixed wireless access such as that provided by Firstnet. Furthermore, we have satellite provision, which is universal but, of course, more expensive. A bundle of different systems are all being called broadband.
	That leads me to my second point. It would be inappropriate to seek to define broadband as being one of the specific and particular objectives of Ofcom in the Bill. The technology is currently varied and continues to change all the time. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, during the lifetime of the Bill, figures of 384K or 512K will be laughable. We will be talking about different technologies and totally different speeds.
	We have a perfectly good provision in Clause 3(3)(a), which sets out that Ofcom must have regard to,
	Xthe desirability of promoting competition in relevant markets".
	It is inconceivable that the broadband market will not be considered by Ofcom to be relevant. If necessary, I am sure that I could secure a statement from the proto Ofcom to that effect.
	The motivation behind the amendments is admirable and we all agree with it, but this is not a technology that should be specified on the face of the Bill any more than should the other technologies. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, will feel that, although I have to resist the amendments, this is not what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would call a "no".

The Earl of Northesk: I thank the Minister for that reply. Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I hear precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, has said. As he correctly anticipated, I shall take full account of the wisdom of his remarks in deciding how to return to this issue on Report. He also made the sensible point that to promote broadband in all cases is the wrong approach. I understand that point. I am merely grateful for his tentative support for the broad thrust of my intention.
	I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I am not wedded in any way to my definitional amendments. It is important that the Government's stance is properly understood and is as clear as possible. In my introductory remarks I sought to show that there was a degree of confusion about the matter. If the Government are confused, so must be the rest of us. However, my real concern is not the definitional amendments, which were a hook upon which to hang that element of the debate; it is the lead amendment. The definitional amendments were merely cosmetic embellishments for the purposes of debate.
	I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the Minister that my judgment is that broadband is integral to the viability and usefulness of the new technology—perhaps I am getting to the heart of a potential flaw in the amendment, because by broadband I mean increased and increasing data transfer speed. Subject to the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, it is beyond question that a competitive market in broadband is needed, or, if the Committee prefers, a competitive market to provide the public with increasing and increased data transfer speed. The Minister agrees. My judgment is that increased and increasing data transfer speed—not necessarily the term "broadband"—is so important in its own right, particularly on the back of the progress or the lack of it so far, that it is justifiable that Ofcom should focus on it.
	The Minister will be assured from my remarks that I will return to the matter on Report. I will take on board some of the observations, particularly the folly—maybe—of focusing on including the term "broadband" in the Bill. I think that I can address that problem. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Alli: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"(g) the maintenance of a vibrant independent production sector"

Lord Alli: I rise to move Amendment No. 14 and in so doing shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 196, 199, 272 and 273, all of which deal with the nourishing and building of the independent production sector. In brief, Amendment No. 14 requires Ofcom to oversee the continued vibrancy of the independent sector; Amendment No. 42 creates a register of original programme ideas to help independent producers to protect their work, and Amendments Nos. 196, 199, 272 and 273 strengthen the existing independent quota system.
	I declare an interest: I have been an independent producer in one form or another for almost the past 15 years, with the exception of a brief period as a broadcaster at Carlton Television. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I shall not repeat my declaration of interest in future Committee debates.
	The independent production sector is the creative community that exists outside the ownership of broadcasters. They come up with ideas for programmes. At Second Reading, I said I believed we had some of the finest television programmes in the world and that if they were not the envy of the world they certainly should be. I put forward two reasons why our creative community is so strong. The first was a system of regulation surrounding public service broadcasting, and the second was the independent production sector, which was established with the birth of Channel 4.
	For Committee Members unfamiliar with television production, let me explain how programmes are commissioned. There are three sources of programmes and programme ideas. The first is the broadcaster, which generally, with the exception of Channel 4, has a team of creators who come up with ideas for programmes that they then make themselves. The second is the independent production community, which competes for the 25 per cent of hours that broadcast networks must commission out. The third is by acquisition of programmes from foreign broadcasters—in effect, that means America. The temptation of broadcasters is always to cut costs. Generally, the losers are the programme makers and, ultimately, the audience.
	The independent sector is an important safeguard to the creative success of the UK. An exhaustive survey of 50 of the most popular new series, introduced between 1992 and 1998, found that nearly 40 per cent of the new formats had come from independent producers. There are dramas, such as "Spooks", "Clocking Off" and "Shackleton"; prime-time documentaries, such as "The Fall of Yugoslavia", "Faking It" and "Jamie's Kitchen"; hugely successful children's programmes, such as "Teletubbies"; shows that have pushed the boundaries of taste, such as "Big Brother" and "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"; history programmes, such as "The Great Plague" and "1900 House"; and documentaries, such as "Congo", and so on and so forth. This is the tip of a vast creative pool of world-class talent.
	The international Emmy awards are the Oscars of the television world. UK independent producers have won over half of all Emmies awarded between 1990 and 2001. That is 38 awards out of a possible 71. Last year, independents also took over 60 per cent of the BAFTA programme awards.
	Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure on the face of the Bill an obligation by Ofcom to oversee that continued vibrancy of the independent production sector. It would be a great injustice to the creative community not to put a safeguard in this legislation to help them ensure that their regulator takes due account of their interests. It is easy in legislation of this size to ignore the people at the bottom of the food chain. I hope that my noble friend will at least feel able to accept this particular amendment.
	Amendment No. 42 deals with the establishment of a register of original programming ideas. The ownership, creation, acquisition, sale and licensing of television rights are as important to the television industry as stocks and shares are to the stock market. However, to date, licensing and acquiring of rights has required not only strong industry knowledge but the deductive reasoning of Miss Marple. Other industries have been a lot more pragmatic in dealing with their rights. There are public registers for almost everything—property, patents, pharmaceuticals and even Internet domain names.
	The time has come for the television industry to establish a public register of its own that will support copyright legislation and copyright protection agencies. It could remove some of the risks of costly litigation and remove the lame excuses that it is too costly to locate rights holders. Generally, these arguments will be made by the broadcasters who want to drive down loyalty fees and take ownership of as many assets as they can from a very privileged position of power.
	I have talked about the value of the independent production sector and the importance of safeguarding its creative work. At Second Reading I talked about the increasing trend of ideas being borrowed—euphemistically—by broadcasters. I likened it to the plight faced by engineers in the Victorian era who spent huge amounts of money and time developing solutions only to find the bigger companies stealing them. I talked about the incentive to create disappearing and the subsequent establishment of the Patent Office. I believe that we are witnessing the beginning of the creative incentive in this country disappearing in the television markets.
	Why should I, as a producer, invest in developing ideas for television if, when I present them to a broadcaster, with some minor changes he can adopt the idea and produce it himself? There is no incentive to walk into a broadcaster and show them one's ideas. I am proposing a simple system as a first stage so that individuals and small companies can register their ideas and help protect them against theft. This is a first step. It is not a big step, but a first step. A television rights register makes a great deal of sense for this industry. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench sees this as a constructive way forward edging the broadcasters towards a higher standard. This should be seen very much as the carrot. If it does not work, I am sure that we can find a stick.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 196, 199, 272 and 273 which deal with the independent production quota. As the law currently stands, there is a requirement by broadcasters—namely, the BBC and ITV—to commission out 25 per cent of the hours that they broadcast to independent producers. The quota originated in 1986 as a result of the Peacock report. It was first voluntary and then made statutory in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Parliament always intended this to be a minimum threshold and not a ceiling on independent productions.
	Three things have happened as a result of the quota. The first is a truly remarkable creative community which has helped to maintain Britain at the forefront of programme making. Secondly, broadcasters have seen the 25 per cent as a ceiling and not as a floor. This particularly applies to the BBC which, for the second year running, has failed to meet its independent production quota. Thirdly, broadcasters have tried to commission out the hours that are the most difficult to make and that are at the cheaper end of the scale.
	The Government were so concerned about safeguarding the independent production centre—for good, economic, commercial and competitive reasons—that they commissioned a programme supply review, undertaken by the ITC. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who is in his place, for inspiring that report; Bob Phillis and the rest of the ITC's expert panel—Anne Bulford, with whom I worked at Carlton, Richard Eyre, Professor Bill Robinson and Sir Howard Stringer—as well as Robin Foster and his team at the ITC.
	The report suggested a number of actions falling into four areas: first, measures to strengthen the longer-term viability of the sector—it is also recommended that Ofcom should monitor the application of the quota and impose fines and sanctions if it was not met—secondly, further safeguards in the Bill to guarantee a continuing high level of UK investment in original programming; thirdly, support for productions in the regions and nations; and fourthly, strengthening the commitment to training.
	I am grateful to the Government for following many of those recommendations but I should like them to go one step further. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when giving permission for BBC 3 to move forward, amended the quota system so that it would not only have to commission out 25 per cent of its hours but would also have to ensure that 25 per cent of its programming budget was spent with independents.
	Amendments Nos. 196, 199, 272 and 273 reflect this change broadly across all broadcasters. It will mean that broadcasters, in addition to commissioning out 25 per cent by hours, will have to ensure that 25 per cent of their programme budget is spent with independents. That will prevent the broadcasters abusing the quota system and result in a further expansion of the independent sector.
	I know that my noble friend the Minister has some reservations about extending the quota budget but her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has set the precedent for good reasons. This will be an opportunity, at least in the short term, to extend that principle.
	The quota system is a complicated and technical configuration but it does work. My amendments will improve it and further protect programme makers in this country. The Government and the broadcasters have nothing to fear from this group of amendments.
	Grouped with my amendments are Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 standing in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Wilcox. I have read their amendments carefully. I understand in principle what they seek to do—that is, to inject additional capital into the independent production market. But perhaps they will look at their amendments again because I suspect that they may allow broadcasters such as Granada and Carlton to set up production entities and attack the independent production quota via the back door. I know that that is not their intention. The additional investment of capital would be much welcomed.
	I apologise for taking up so much of the Committee's time but this group of amendments is the only group to deal with independent television production. It is such an important area that I felt it necessary to explain the reasons behind each amendment. They are not so-called probing amendments. I genuinely believe that they should be on the face of the Bill and I want these changes to be made. I believe that they will be in the best interests of viewers and will stimulate an important sector of the economy. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will at least leave the door open to enable us to take this forward at Report stage. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 14, 42, 196, 272 and 273. I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 14, 42 and 196. It was remiss of me not to have added it to Amendments Nos. 272 and 273.
	We entirely support the amendments, which in turn support the independent sector. We believe that the amendments would lead to more independent production, which therefore would promote greater competition and greater transparency of the programme production market. They provide for the greatest push in programme exports and they would encourage entrepreneurs like the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to enter the television market. That has to be a good thing.
	I move quickly on to Amendments Nos. 197 and 198, in my name, and note straight away what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has said. The amendments are intended to introduce a definition of independence which would allow companies which gained no economic advantage from an ownership relationship with another broadcaster to produce programmes that qualify for the quota. At present, production companies that have an ownership relationship with a broadcaster—that is, they share the same parent, but have no preferential commissioning relationship with that broadcaster—are deemed to be non-qualifying independents—although to all intents and purposes they are, on a day-to-day basis, independent. Those companies are therefore at a disadvantage compared with both other independents whose productions count towards the quota and with in-house production teams. That is damaging not only to specific non-qualifying independents, but to the independent production sector more widely, as success for smaller independents and ensuing investment from larger companies can result in loss of independent status. Large UK producers are the most likely source of risk capital for small UK independent production companies. Similarly, up-and-coming producers are being discouraged from working for successful and supportive companies which are non-qualifying independents for fear that their work will not be commissioned.
	I do hope that the Minister will look on these amendments sympathetically. Amendment No. 198 would require producers to show that they have derived no more than 33 per cent of gross revenues from production activity from a related broadcaster. We believe that this test would be easy to measure and account for. In addition, it means that should a production company change status and become economically dependent, it would then automatically lose its independent status—exactly what the law is intended to account for. I hear and accept what the noble Lord, Lord Alli has said. He has raised the concern that notwithstanding his support of the principles and sentiments behind these amendments, the actual wording could mean that this would allow additional capital into the independent market for broadcasters to set up, as he put it, production entities by the back door.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for raising that point. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response to the principle behind the amendments, bearing in mind that we would be keen and willing to take another look at the actual wording between now and Report stage.

Lord Crickhowell: I warmly support the first amendment, with its emphasis on the need to maintain a vibrant independent production sector. I believe that that is right. I confess to some doubts about the proposition that the register of ideas should be in the hands of Ofcom. In his Second Reading speech the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that it was time to consider a system of registering ideas. I have no difficulty at all with that. In part of his speech this evening he said that it was time for the television industry to establish a register. I have no difficulty with that. However, I am sceptical that it can be the right job of a regulator like Ofcom, with all its other responsibilities, to hold the register, police it, and presumably see that something useful is done with it. I am not sure that that is the right place for the register and therefore I have serious doubts about those amendments.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Alli, turned to my noble friend's amendments, he presented them as representing a possible attack on the independents by Carlton and Granada. I want to put a slightly different point of view. I no longer have any connection with either of those organisations, but I have some experience of the relationship of licence holders such as HTV with the independent sector. I suppose that together with my noble friend I can claim some role in promoting the independent sector through the part we played in establishing S4C. Probably the biggest boost to the independent sector in Wales was the establishment of S4C and the need therefore to produce Welsh language television.
	However, there has been a boost to the independent sector not only in the field of Welsh language television, and perhaps I can claim some modest part in that during my time as a director of HTV. The relationship between a company such as HTV and other licence holders and the independent sector has been extremely important and productive.
	Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which the programmes of a regional subsidiary would qualify as independent for its owner's network schedules, but there are strong arguments for suggesting that ITV regional companies should qualify as independents for other broadcasters.
	The fact of the matter is that the relationship that we had, for example, in Wales between HTV and the independents led to considerable independent production successes. We achieved successes in drama, documentary and current affairs strands. I believe that there is a risk that increasingly prescriptive independent quotas for the broadcasters, excluding that kind of operation, may threaten the continued close co-operation which would harm the independent sector.
	There is a strong case for considering that if companies such as HTV could produce programmes for the BBC or other separate companies, they would be likely to work with independents and would encourage independent production. In Wales, we would certainly see a growth of English language independents in addition to the Welsh language independents.
	I note that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who has a particular interest in this matter, disagrees with me, but the view is strongly held by my former colleagues. They believe passionately in the case of the independents and perhaps for a particular reason. We as a company were among the first to feel the enormous financial burdens that fell on the industry as a result of the bidding process. We suddenly had to get rid of a large number of our former employees. We probably led the way in the industry. A large number of our former employees set themselves up as independent producers and we continued to work with them—only with the difference that they produced for us and for others, and did so in a different relationship. So I return to my starting point; that is, the passionate belief in the role of the independents.
	However, I urge that we do not simply dismiss the idea that a partnership can produce even more productive results than an exclusion. I hope that further thought will be given to those relationships and that even the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will consider it a possibility. I give way.

Lord Alli: This is a dangerous argument. It is seductive to believe that ITV, when it is consolidated into a single company which still has brands out there called HTV, Scottish Television, Granada, Carlton or London Weekend, should, with the broadcaster resources, be allowed to qualify for quota for the BBC. That is an absurd suggestion. There is nothing stopping the BBC buying programmes from London Weekend Television or HTV, but it should not be allowed to use the quota as an incentive to subsidise the ITV broadcaster. That does not help the independent production sector, but helps a combined ITV owned by a single set of shareholders and not the creative community.

Lord Crickhowell: Perhaps I may make one further point in that regard. It is a subject to which we shall return on later amendments. It is production outside the M25. For some curious reason we have now entered into a situation where it is thought to be entirely satisfactory if television is produced two miles outside the M25, which counts as regional production.
	But the reality is that we have to have production out in all the regions. If that is to be achieved, companies such as HTV producing in Cardiff and Bristol should receive a respectable share of what is available and work with the independents within those regions.
	I entirely agree with the proposition that has just been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, if we were going to have a centralised system in which all the production came from Pinewood or somewhere in the Home Counties. As I shall argue in a later debate, we have to strengthen regional broadcasting, in which I believe passionately. Therefore, the noble Lord should not close his mind entirely to the idea that partnership out in the regions is wholly helpful and constructive for the independent companies that have established themselves in those regions. I leave the matter there for the time being.

Viscount Falkland: We on these Benches broadly support the issues that are raised in this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, has eloquently explained the position based on his great experience. I fancy that none of us would disagree about the importance of the independent sector and the successes it has had, and continues to have, in providing vitality in this country's broadcasting output.
	I had not been aware that the BBC is not yet meeting its quota. That is worrying. I am not quite sure why that should be the case. It may be that between now and the next stage of the Bill I can speak with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to shed some light on the matter. I would not want to throw loose accusations around the Committee. The importance of the independent sector will not be lost on anybody, least of all on those taking part in the Committee. There is the vitality which the independent sector brings with a quick response to changing ideas and taste in different categories of the population, including the young and ethnic groups. It is stimulating as regards the creative work that is done by many people who might not otherwise have access to the machinery whereby their work can develop and be put into programming.
	The debate on quotas has become a great deal more complex than I had expected. As we understand it, the current regime, well intentioned though it is, creates some difficulties for the independent sector where quotas apply. We all know about the minimum of 25 per cent of time allocated to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes.
	We also understand that secondary legislation will shortly come before Parliament. That legislation is currently being redrafted. It will to some extent correct the definition of "independents". The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, explained—therefore, I shall not go into it in any depth—that independent companies which are under the umbrella, or in the orbit, of a large broadcaster now find themselves in a difficult position whereby they are not considered to be independents in the sense in which that term is understood under the current regime. That leads to serious consequences for those businesses.
	The Secretary of State, Mrs Jowell, at the ITC's programme supply review at the Oxford media conference in January rightly announced a strengthening of the powers that would be given to Ofcom to police the independent production quota. But that has created a lot of disturbance from the point of view of the long-term commissioning process. Companies are now worried that those independents that they have been considering may not be qualified to provide programming for them. That is obviously an unintentional effect. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there has been any further thinking on that point. Some of the larger independent companies have close shareholding relationships with larger broadcasters with which they have very little programme-making activity but do work for others, including the BBC. At the moment they consider that they are in an extremely vulnerable position. I believe that most noble Lords would agree that that matter must be looked at and corrected.
	I do not intend to discuss the issue debated by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and other noble Lords on further refinements of the matter we are discussing. I shall read Hansard very carefully. Presumably we shall revisit the matter at a later stage. It seems to us that the way in which Ofcom will deal with the future of the independents is one of the most important aspects of the legislation.
	Having said that, we look forward to studying the matter very much more closely and perhaps being better equipped to enter into the very sophisticated debate which developed between the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Alli. We feel rather inadequately equipped to enter that debate at this stage although undoubtedly we shall do so at a later stage.

Lord Puttnam: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Alli and perhaps to offer a little context for this debate. In the five-and-a-half years I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have meticulously never gone into any detail or bored the House in any way about my earlier career, but it seems almost perverse not to do so at this particular juncture.
	I joined the film industry in 1969. At that point 90 per cent of the people involved in the industry were permanently employed and 10 per cent were freelance or independent. Some 34 years later those percentages have exactly reversed themselves. Today 90 per cent of the people involved in the industry are independent and 10 per cent are permanently employed. From 1969 to 1983 I was disbarred from producing any form of material for television because if you did not work for one of the television companies, you could not produce for them. This reached the apotheosis of ridiculousness when, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I was a director of Anglia Television in 1980 but until 1983 I could not actually make a programme for Anglia. That was how daft the situation was.
	Quotas allowed me to produce my first work for television both here and abroad. Another market distortion was introduced by the 1945 Labour government—the Eady levy. Thanks to the Eady levy I and my entire generation—every single member of my generation of film makers—made their first piece of work. I name a few such film makers: the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, Sir Alan Parker, Sir Ridley Scott, Ken Loach, Stephen Frears. Every single member of my generation of film makers made their first films with the support of the National Film Finance Corporation. That was market distortion and regulation—not deregulation. The history of the independent sector in Britain has entirely relied upon a market-distorted process. My absolute contention is that it cannot survive in a free market. The market has changed very significantly.
	My noble friend Lord Alli is quite right to table his amendment, because unless we protect and nurture the independent sector in this country, it will go back to where it was in 1969 and cease to exist.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: As a former television producer—so long ago that I can barely remember it—I heartily endorse the thrust of the amendments, because they support the proven creativity of the independent sector, which is economically and culturally important not only in the metropolis but beyond the magic circle of the M25.
	Major production centres have developed in some of our provincial cities. That is welcome because they have introduced a new dimension of enterprise and creativity to local economies. In Wales, the independent sector has benefited from the presence of an additional public service broadcaster in the form of S4C. Some 60 per cent of its analogue service is supplied by the independent sector, rising to 80 per cent with the launch of its digital service.
	It was never intended that S4C should produce anything very much of its own but should always go out for its programming. The Bill introduces an independent production quota of 25 per cent for S4C along with other public service broadcasters. That does not make sense in view of the reality that I have just described. I hope that the Government will look again at the anomalous position of S4C in that context. We want S4C not to reduce independent production, but to encourage it and provide a stable financial base.
	In relation to the larger argument, there is always a propensity within licensed broadcasting organisations to do programming themselves rather than go outside. There is a bias against the independent sector, which is not as highly valued as it should be.
	There are some 90 businesses in Wales involving independent producers. They have enjoyed success, even internationally, with an animation series produced for S4C. They are known as Welsh Independent Producers—Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru. It is on their behalf that I have said my few words.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the noble Lord, Lord Alli. His references to Channel 4 prompted me to realise that in an earlier speech today I declared no interest. I probably should share with the Committee the information that my second son has been working for Channel 4 for some years and is a reasonably senior manager there, on the digital side.
	My interest in the issues raised by the noble Lord go back to my own period as a Minister engaged in this area between 1992 and 1994, when I remember being consistently impressed by the representations made by groups of independent producers about their development and problems. I am delighted to hear of the quota's success and will briefly return to the BBC later.
	I warmly support my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts in their remarks about S4C, which comes into the same category as Channel 4.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the wide range of awards won. I cannot help feeling that that particular success contributes to the plurality of which we were speaking earlier in today's proceedings. Going back to my experience between 1992 and 1994, I share his misgiving about individual ITV companies contributing towards the quota. I understand the problem that has arisen, and I fear sclerotic consequences if concessions were to be made in that area. I fear that they would not contribute to the success behind the achievement that is Amendment No. 14—the generic amendment—which seems to me the touchstone test.
	The BBC has written quite frequently to individual Members of the House over the past month. I am not absolutely confident that it has ever in correspondence with me explained why it has been missing the quota. I can even remember one letter that gave the impression that the BBC was quite pleased to have got as close to fulfilling the quota as it had. I understand why it does not raise the subject but, considering all the other things that it asks us to support it on—I have been happy to allude to them earlier today—it is slightly careless of it not to have described why it does that.
	In the final analysis, the Minister's response on all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and indeed by my noble friend, will be tested by some of us against the contribution that they make to achieving the fundamental premise that underlies Amendment No. 14. If the Government's heart is in the right place in terms of achieving what Amendment No. 14 talks about, they will have done well, certainly so far as I am concerned.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I want to emphasise the importance for Ofcom, once the Bill has passed into law, of having adequate powers in relation to independent production to ensure proper regional dispersal of production. Wales has an excellent record in that, of course, but it has certain linguistic advantages in making that possible.
	In television production, in my experience, there is an immense magnetic attraction to the London area—to get inside the M25. In my time, S4C used to make very vigorous efforts to go up to Scotland to promote independent production there. I am not sure what the present position is. However, I have a suspicion that in general there has been a relaxation of that dispersal of independent production, and a greater concentration coming down into the London area. As ITV develops—if we get ITV plc—I greatly fear for all the great regional traditions of the ITV system. The pressures again will be toward independent production being concentrated down here in the London area.
	In a completely different context, in my ministerial days I remember once trying to persuade the Home Office to engage in an effective dispersal of the Passport Office. With great agony, it finally produced plans to take us out to Ealing. Television has that same inner pressure towards the glories of the London area.
	I searched as thoroughly as I could through the great volumes of the Bill for any reference to the importance of the regional dimension of independent production. I found none there. Before the Bill finally passes from this House, I hope that we might be able to do something about that.

Lord Dubs: I should first declare an interest as chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, although that organisation's work has very little to do directly with my noble friend Lord Alli's amendment, to which I should like to give my warm support.
	I first came across the issue of independent producers not through the glamour of having been a producer or through having operated at the heady heights of owning a television company, but on a very wet morning in Brighton during the Labour Party conference, when I was invited to breakfast by PACT. It had a briefing session at which it put me in the picture as regards the difficult situation in which independent producers found themselves. It was in a situation in which it had little economic power compared with the big battalions—the larger television companies, including the BBC and ITV. The fact that the scales were tipped against it made life pretty difficult. I was delighted when the committee of my noble friend Lord Puttnam made a firm recommendation that led to the Government accepting the proposal to give the ITC the responsibility of reviewing programme supply.
	Various useful measures stemmed from that, including, I understand, the fact that the contracts under which independent producers have sometimes suffered will now be revised or at least be made more flexible so that they can negotiate better contracts. I understand that the previous position was that independent producers were tied in particular to the BBC and therefore had no independent right to market their production outside the UK; they were dependent on the BBC to do that. If the BBC chose not to do that, that was the end of the opportunity for the independent producer to make more money from their creative work. I believe that that will change as a result of the ITC review.
	I turn briefly to the question of the 25 per cent quota. I understand that it depends on what are called qualifying hours, which can be significantly less than the total number of hours for which there are programmes. That is caused by the number of exemptions—I refer, for example, to Open University programming, news, programmes with a large life content and so on. If one then examines the difference between the 25 per cent quota by time and the 25 per cent quota by value, which is what I support—I believe that it is the basis for some of the amendments tabled by my noble friend—one sees that the position would then become a little better for independent producers.
	I was given some figures by PACT about the BBC; I am not trying to pick on the BBC in particular, for which I have a great deal of respect, I quickly add. We shall discuss it in relation to later amendments. Looking at the figures by value, the 25 per cent figure becomes about 13 per cent with regard to work commissioned from independent productions. It is lower because of the point about qualifying hours and because of the difference between time and value. We should convert the qualifying quota from time to value. That would give our independent producers a little more of a fair crack of the whip. It is a question of giving them an even chance to compete. I believe that we are moving in that direction; if my noble friend's amendments were agreed to, we should move much more significantly in that direction.

Baroness Blackstone: I shall endeavour to demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and all other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate that the Government's heart is in the right place with regard to the independent production sector.
	I strongly agree with the claim made by my noble friend Lord Alli, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and practically every other speaker in this debate; that is, that the independent production sector is very important within the whole broadcasting environment. I also strongly agree that it produces some very fine programmes. If I did not acknowledge that, I should be in grave trouble with my daughter, who currently happens to make documentary programmes in the independent sector. I do not know whether that involves declaring an interest; the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, declared an interest in relation to his son.
	The Government asked the ITC to undertake a review of programme supply in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others mentioned, in response to concerns expressed during consultation on the Bill about the overall economic health of the programme supply market and the position of independent producers within it. It also commissioned that because it agreed with what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said; that is, that the sector should be protected and nurtured. I agree with all the former and current producers who spoke this evening about that.
	The ITC's authoritative and incisive report was published in November 2002 and was well received by the whole industry. The Government accepted almost all its recommendations. Following the review, we made a substantial body of amendments in another place to strengthen the Bill's requirements on independent productions.
	Let me reassert, therefore—it is important to the noble Lord, Lord McNally—that the Government are listening and have already made a great many changes to the Bill of which this is another example. These amendments will require all broadcasters to draw up and agree with Ofcom codes of practice for their dealings with independent producers. They will give Ofcom the power to measure the independent productions quota by value as well as volume if appropriate. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. They will require Ofcom to review periodically the way the quota is working and report to the Secretary of State. They will give Ofcom the power to require broadcasters to make up any shortfall in the quota in subsequent years.
	These amendments demonstrate our strong and ongoing commitment to the independent production sector. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alli and other speakers who have begun at least to acknowledge that. I can assure the Committee that the issue of independent productions will be very much at the forefront of Ofcom thinking. That is what the Government intend and expect of Ofcom. In particular, under its annual factual and statistical report, Ofcom must consider certain aspects of the programming quota for independent productions.
	Paragraphs (e),(f) and (g) of Clause 351(3) require Ofcom specifically to consider the application of the quota and the effectiveness of the conditions and duties that are in force; whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that he exercise the power to change the quota or the way the quota is operated; and the extent to which independent productions are produced in the United Kingdom in a range of production centres outside the M25 area.
	I believe that Ofcom's wide-ranging requirements adequately meet the concerns that prompted Amendment No. 14. I do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to include a reference to the independent production sector as one of the overarching objectives contained in Clause 3(2). As far as a link between Ofcom's general duties and the UK programme supply market is needed, it seems to me that it is one of the "relevant markets" referred to in subsection (3)(e) and as such Ofcom will have to have regard to the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation in it. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
	Amendment No. 42 would insert a new clause proposing a new duty for Ofcom to promote the independent production sector. As I have explained in some detail, Ofcom will be very aware that to promote the independent production sector is already firmly within its remit. Furthermore, I am sure that Ofcom's radar is already fixed on this issue as one to which they must have particular regard. Again, I do not believe that that additional duty for Ofcom is necessary.
	Furthermore, I am unsure as to the value of a register of programme ideas. Indeed, I am not aware that it has been raised as a specific concern in the broad consultation that has taken place on the Bill either by broadcasters or by the independent producers themselves. I agree, therefore, with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that keeping a register of all original programme ideas would appear to be a pretty big administrative burden to be placed on Ofcom, the benefits of which are not immediately obvious. Perhaps a register of original programme ideas might be considered a useful tool for independent producers. If that is the case, it would be appropriate, perhaps, for PACT, as the trade association which represents their interests, to develop and maintain such a register. Perhaps my noble friend would like to take that up.
	Perhaps I may comment briefly on the issue of copyright protection, which my noble friend also raised. We are aware that some people have raised concerns about the existence of copyright protection for programme formats in the past. However, I think that many people now take the view that sufficiently elaborated original programme formats are already protected by copyright, and that is something with which the Government agree.
	I reinforce what I have said by emphasising again that Ofcom will have an enormous amount of flexibility to promote the independent production sector in carrying out their duties. Therefore, I do not think that this new clause is necessary.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 196 and 199, which would require Ofcom to secure that every public service broadcaster in each year must meet a programming quota for independent productions by both "value" as a percentage of the broadcaster's annual budget allocated to qualifying programmes as well as by "broadcast time".
	Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 to Schedule 12 would place similar requirements on the BBC. It is perhaps appropriate at this point to say that like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and one or two other speakers, the Government are somewhat disappointed that the BBC has not managed to meet its quota targets. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the chairman of the BBC about that. I am sure that we will have a reply very soon. We know about the particular problems caused by the issues of Endemol, but I do not think that that entirely explains why it has not reached its quota.
	The ITC UK programme supply review specifically examined a recommendation of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. The ITC review was not persuaded of the need at present for such intervention in broadcasters' scheduling decisions. However, the review recommended that Ofcom keep that position under review, with reserve powers in the Bill to monitor the programming quota for independent products by value as well as or instead of by broadcasting time if that seemed appropriate. The Government have accepted that recommendation. It does not quite meet what is proposed by the amendments but it goes a very long way towards doing so. I hope that what the Government are doing in that respect will be accepted.
	An order-making power for the Secretary of State to effect that change was introduced in another place. That power, which must be triggered by a recommendation from Ofcom, would allow the Secretary of State to make an order which would give Ofcom a duty to set licence conditions for the public service channels—Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5—which would secure in each year that the programming quota for the independent productions must be met by value as well as or instead of by broadcasting time.
	The "by value" measure at Clause 273(5) means that the broadcaster in question must apply a certain percentage of its programming budget for qualifying programmes in a year to the acquisition of independent productions. That could be applied as well as or instead of the present measure which requires a certain proportion of broadcasting time to be devoted to such productions. Similar provisions were also introduced in Schedule 12 to extend that power to both the BBC and the Welsh Authority. I shall return to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
	I hope that noble Lords will agree that should it appear to Ofcom that a "by value" programming quota for independent products is needed, there are now appropriate measures in place to impose those requirements. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
	I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. S4C has never before had a quota for independent production, but the Bill includes S4C in the 25 per cent for the first time. As with Channel 4, the expectation is that S4C will achieve a higher percentage. I hope that that response meets the noble Lord's points.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke to Amendment No. 197, which would insert the term "independent producers" into Clause 273(2)(b). Amendment No. 198 would define that term as a producer who is not an employee of a broadcasting company, and is not a body corporate deriving more than 33 per cent of its gross annual revenue from a related broadcaster.
	Prior to the establishment of programming quotas for independent productions a decision was taken in the Broadcasting Act 1990 that the definition of both "independent productions" and "qualifying programmes" should be set by the Secretary of State by secondary legislation. This was considered to be a rather more flexible approach to ensure that the definition of the terms used within the primary legislation remain appropriate to achieving the objectives of the quota. Establishing a definition of the term "independent producer" in primary legislation would restrict the flexibility and scope of the order-making powers under the Bill. Therefore, it really would defeat the purpose outlined by noble Lords who contributed to this evening's debate.
	As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, defining "independent producers" in the way proposed was considered as part of the ITC UK Programme Supply Review. The review examined the role of independent producers within the programme supply market and specifically examined the current definitions. The ITC noted that it did not think that there was a case at present for changes in qualification criteria to include producers who have ownership links to UK broadcasters. It considered available evidence, which showed—contrary to what has been suggested tonight—that producers in this category were not being unduly affected by exclusion from the quota at present, and that a change of definition would most likely impact adversely on other independent producers.
	I understand the arguments that noble Lords have made by way of these amendments. I can assure them that, through the ongoing monitoring of the quota, Ofcom will keep these definitions under review. I hope that helps noble Lords, at least a little. Any further changes to the definition can be made by secondary legislation. However, I believe that the programming quota for independent productions has worked well. It has served as a catalyst. It has also helped stimulate competition and diversity and encouraged a thriving and innovative production sector.
	Through Clause 273 we aim to ensure that independent producers continue to make a significant contribution to the programme supply market in this country, as well as allowing us the flexibility to make some changes as circumstances dictate. I therefore see no reason to make such a fundamental change to the clause. I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendment. Similarly, in the light of what I have said at somewhat great length in an effort to be helpful, I hope that my noble friend Lord Alli will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Alli: Given the lateness of the hour, I shall restrict my comments to just a few. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I also thank other Members of the Committee who contributed to the debate, and am grateful for the support that these amendments have received from all parts of the Chamber.
	This is an important debate for the creative community and one which will have a profound effect on its future. No doubt I shall return to my discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in terms of ITV companies pitching for independent quota. That conjures up in my mind the picture of a fox entering a chicken coop and saying, "Don't worry, I'll work with you, my dears".
	I shall read carefully what my noble friend had to say and I shall reflect on the way forward on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.